Oropharyngeal Decontamination for Prevention of VAP in PatientsAdmitted to Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Oropharyngeal colonization with pathogenic organisms contributes to thedevelopment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in intensive care units (ICUs). Oralhygiene care (OHC) is a very effective method for reducing the risk of VAP in these patients.This study aimed to evaluate recent OHC strategies to decrease VAP.Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase,Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 10, 2020 werereviewed to compare the effects of selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) on theincidence of VAP in adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation.Results: Out of a total of 1098 articles reviewed, 17 eligible studies were included for finalanalysis. The results showed that the use of chlorhexidine for oropharyngeal decontaminationreduces the incidence of VAP. However, it had a small effect on gram-negative resistant bacteria.Also, it was observed that the combined use of colistin and chlorhexidine was more effectivethan chlorhexidine alone in preventing VAP. The results of studies on the use of toothbrushes toreduce the incidence of pneumonia are unclear since they used chlorhexidine at the same time.However, tooth brushing is one of the best ways to maintain oral hygiene. Using povidoneiodine,Nanosil, and non-absorbable topical antibiotics reduced the incidence of VAP, whileIseganan did not show a significant effect in this regard.Conclusion: The prophylactic use of topical bactericidal agents in critically-ill patients is effectivein reducing the incidence of VAP. However, the use of non-absorbable topical antibiotics ismore effective than other methods in oropharyngeal decontamination.

Cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) versus selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units with low levels of antimicrobial resistance: an individual patient data meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) as compared to selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units (ICUs) with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.DesignPost-hoc analysis of a previously performed individual patient data meta-analysis of two cluster-randomised cross-over trials.Setting24 ICUs in the Netherlands.Participants12 952 ICU patients who were treated with ≥1 dose of SDD (n=6720) or SOD (n=6232).InterventionsSDD versus SOD.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; ie, costs to prevent one in-hospital death) was calculated by comparing differences in direct healthcare costs and in-hospital mortality of patients treated with SDD versus SOD. A willingness-to-pay curve was plotted to reflect the probability of cost-effectiveness of SDD for a range of different values of maximum costs per prevented in-hospital death.ResultsThe ICER resulting from the fixed-effect meta-analysis, adjusted for clustering and differences in baseline characteristics, showed that SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted absolute risk reduction 0.0195, 95% CI 0.0050 to 0.0338) with no difference in costs (adjusted cost difference €62 in favour of SDD, 95% CI –€1079 to €935). Thus, SDD yielded significantly lower in-hospital mortality and comparable costs as compared with SOD. At a willingness-to-pay value of €33 633 per one prevented in-hospital death, SDD had a probability of 90.0% to be cost-effective as compared with SOD.ConclusionIn Dutch ICUs, SDD has a very high probability of cost-effectiveness as compared to SOD. These data support the implementation of SDD in settings with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.

Oral, nasopharyngeal, and gut decontamination in the ICU

Many infections are caused by enteric bacilli, presumably from endogenous origin. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) was developed to selectively eliminate the aerobic Gram-negative bacilli from the digestive tract, leaving the anaerobic flora unaffected. As an alternative to SDD, investigators have evaluated the effects of selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOpD) alone. Most detailed data on the effects of SDD and SOpD in ICU-patients come from two studies performed in Dutch ICUs. The Dutch studies provide strong evidence that SDD and SOpD reduce ICUmortality, ICU-acquired bacteraemia with Gram-negative bacteria, and systemic antibiotic use. Although successful application has been reported from several solitary ICUs across Europe, it is currently unknown to what extent these effects can be achieved in settings with different bacterial ecology. More studies are needed on the use of SDD or SOpD as a measure to control outbreaks with multidrug resistant bacteria.