Effect of oral hygiene and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia after cardiovascular surgery

51Citations
Citations of this article
159Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a nosocomial infection of multifactorial etiology and has a negative influence on cardiovascular surgery (CVS) outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Determine the effect of toothbrushing plus 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse in preventing VAP after CVS. METHODS: In a quasi-experimental study, patients undergoing heart surgery were enrolled in a protocol for controlling dental biofilm by proper oral hygiene (toothbrushing) and oral rinses with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (Group 1), and they were compared with a historical control group (Group 2), which included patients who underwent cardiac surgery between 2009 and 2010 and who received regular oral hygiene care. Seventy-two hours before surgery, a dentist provided instruction and supervised oral hygiene with toothbrushing and chlorhexidine oral rinses to patients in Group 1. RESULTS: Each group comprised 150 patients. A lower incidence of VAP (2.7% [95% CI 0.7-7.8] vs 8.7% [95% CI 4.9 -14.7], P =.04) and a shorter hospital stay (9 ± 3 d [95% CI 8.5-9.5] vs 10 ± 4 d [95% CI 9.4 -10.7], P +.01) were observed in Group 1. No significant differences in all-cause in-hospital death were observed between groups (5.3% vs 4.7%, P >.99). The risk for developing pneumonia after surgery was 3-fold higher in Group 2 (3.9, 95% CI 1.1-14.2). CONCLUSIONS: Oral hygiene and mouth rinses with chlorhexidine under supervision of a dentist proved effective in reducing the incidence of VAP. © 2014 Daedalus Enterprise.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nicolosi, L. N., del Carmen Rubio, M., Martinez, C. D., González, N. N., & Cruz, M. E. (2014). Effect of oral hygiene and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia after cardiovascular surgery. Respiratory Care, 59(4), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.02666

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free