Effect of Oral Care with Povidone-Iodine in the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Oral hygiene
meta-analysis
pneumonia
povidone-iodine
primary prevention
ventilator-associated
Journal
Archives of academic emergency medicine
ISSN: 2645-4904
Titre abrégé: Arch Acad Emerg Med
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101740147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
22
5
2023
entrez:
22
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections affecting one-third of patients with mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to synthesize available evidence regarding the effect of treatment with povidone-iodine (PI) among adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for the prevention of VAP. An extensive search was conducted in online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, from the earliest records until January 1, 2023. STATA software v14 was used for statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests. A P-value less than 0.1 was considered statistically significant for publication bias value. Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed rhat PI decreased VAP compared to the placebo group, but it was not statistically significant (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.25 to 1.47, Z=1.10, P=0.27, I2:71.5%). One study compared the effect of PI with chlorhexidine on the rate of VAP, the difference between which was not statistically significant (RR: 1.50, 95%CI: 0.46 to 4.87, Z=0.67, P=0.50, I2:0). Two studies demonstrated that the use of PI intervention compared to placebo decreased the average length of stay in ICU; however, it was not statistically significant (WMD: -0.35, 95%CI:-3.90 to 3.20, Z=0.19, P=0.85, I2:0). Also, three studies showed that using PI had almost no effect on mortality rate compared to placebo (RR: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.66 to 1.53, Z=0.8, P=0.27, I2:29.0%). More rigorously designed randomized clinical trials and further evidence are required to make a better decision/comparison about using PI as a suitable choice for preventing VAP among adult patients admitted to the ICU.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37215234
doi: 10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1874
pmc: PMC10197909
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e31Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Crit Care. 2018 Oct 28;22(1):272
pubmed: 30368249
J Evid Based Med. 2017 Aug;10(3):233-240
pubmed: 28857505
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Br Dent J. 2020 May;228(9):656-657
pubmed: 32385428
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;40(3):615-622
pubmed: 33230628
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):888-906
pubmed: 32157357
Crit Care Med. 2021 Nov 1;49(11):e1063-e1143
pubmed: 34605781
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Feb 24;20(1):62
pubmed: 32093667
Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1514-9
pubmed: 16540962
Rev Port Pneumol. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):152-61
pubmed: 24674617
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Intensive Care Med. 2006 Feb;32(2):230-236
pubmed: 16435104
Crit Care Clin. 2017 Apr;33(2):277-292
pubmed: 28284295
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 31;17(1):112
pubmed: 28143414
Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):1-8
pubmed: 24105456
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 May;25(5):2439-2447
pubmed: 33537946
Br Dent J. 2020 Apr;228(8):615-622
pubmed: 32332964
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 24;12:CD008367
pubmed: 33368159