Questions linked to Niël-Weise BS, Wille JC, van den Broek PJ. Humidification policies for mechanically ventilated intensive care patients and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Hosp Infect 2007;65:285–291.

2007 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 283
2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 552-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Berry ◽  
Patricia M. Davidson ◽  
Janet Masters ◽  
Kaye Rolls

Background Oropharyngeal colonization with pathogenic organisms contributes to the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units. Although considered basic and potentially nonessential nursing care, oral hygiene has been proposed as a key intervention for reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia. Nevertheless, evidence from randomized controlled trials that could inform best practice is limited. Objective To appraise the peer-reviewed literature to determine the best available evidence for providing oral care to intensive care patients receiving mechanical ventilation and to document a research agenda for this important activity in optimizing patients’ outcomes. Methods Articles published from 1985 to 2006 in English and indexed in the CINAHL, MEDLINE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and DARE databases were searched by using the key terms oral hygiene, oral hygiene practices, oral care, mouth care, mouth hygiene, intubated, mechanically ventilated, intensive care, and critical care. Reference lists of retrieved journal articles were searched for publications missed during the primary search. Finally, the Google search engine was used to do a comprehensive search of the World Wide Web to ensure completeness of the search. The search strategy was verified by a health librarian. Results The search yielded 55 articles: 11 prospective controlled trials, 20 observational studies, and 24 descriptive reports. Methodological issues and the heterogeneity of samples precluded meta-analysis. Conclusions Despite the importance of providing oral hygiene to intensive care patients receiving mechanical ventilation, high-level evidence from rigorous randomized controlled trials or high-quality systematic reviews that could inform clinical practice is scarce.


Heart & Lung ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Santos de Queiroz ◽  
Micheli Bernardone Saquetto ◽  
Bruno Prata Martinez ◽  
Edil Alves Andrade ◽  
Paula Aracoeli Miranda Pimentel da Silva ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document