Cargando…

Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic enteric bacteria aspirated from the oropharynx are the main cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Using chlorhexidine (CHX) orally or selective decontamination has been shown to reduce VAP. In a pilot study we found that oral care with the probiotic bacterium Lactoba...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Klarin, Bengt, Adolfsson, Anne, Torstensson, Anders, Larsson, Anders
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6204275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30368249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2209-4
_version_ 1783366016847314944
author Klarin, Bengt
Adolfsson, Anne
Torstensson, Anders
Larsson, Anders
author_facet Klarin, Bengt
Adolfsson, Anne
Torstensson, Anders
Larsson, Anders
author_sort Klarin, Bengt
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pathogenic enteric bacteria aspirated from the oropharynx are the main cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Using chlorhexidine (CHX) orally or selective decontamination has been shown to reduce VAP. In a pilot study we found that oral care with the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum 299 (Lp299) was as effective as CHX in reducing enteric bacteria in the oropharynx. To confirm those results, in this expanded study with an identical protocol we increased the number of patients and participating centres. METHODS: One hundred and fifty critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation were randomised to oral care with either standard 0.1% CHX solution (control group) or a procedure comprising final application of an emulsion of Lp299. Samples for microbiological analyses were taken from the oropharynx and trachea at inclusion and subsequently at defined intervals. Student’s t test was used for comparisons of parameters recorded daily and Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the results of microbiological cultures. RESULTS: Potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria not present at inclusion were identified in oropharyngeal samples from 29 patients in the CHX group and in 31 samples in the probiotic group. Considering cultures of tracheal secretions, enteric bacteria were found in 17 and 19 samples, respectively. Risk ratios show a difference in favour of the Lp group for fungi in oropharyngeal cultures. VAP was diagnosed in seven patients in the Lp group and in 10 patients among the controls. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre study, we could not demonstrate any difference between Lp299 and CHX used in oral care procedures regarding their impact on colonisation with emerging potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria in the oropharynx and trachea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01105819. Registered on 9 April 2010. First part: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN00472141. Registered on 22 November 2007 (published Critical Care 2008, 12:R136).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6204275
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62042752018-10-31 Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial Klarin, Bengt Adolfsson, Anne Torstensson, Anders Larsson, Anders Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Pathogenic enteric bacteria aspirated from the oropharynx are the main cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Using chlorhexidine (CHX) orally or selective decontamination has been shown to reduce VAP. In a pilot study we found that oral care with the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum 299 (Lp299) was as effective as CHX in reducing enteric bacteria in the oropharynx. To confirm those results, in this expanded study with an identical protocol we increased the number of patients and participating centres. METHODS: One hundred and fifty critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation were randomised to oral care with either standard 0.1% CHX solution (control group) or a procedure comprising final application of an emulsion of Lp299. Samples for microbiological analyses were taken from the oropharynx and trachea at inclusion and subsequently at defined intervals. Student’s t test was used for comparisons of parameters recorded daily and Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the results of microbiological cultures. RESULTS: Potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria not present at inclusion were identified in oropharyngeal samples from 29 patients in the CHX group and in 31 samples in the probiotic group. Considering cultures of tracheal secretions, enteric bacteria were found in 17 and 19 samples, respectively. Risk ratios show a difference in favour of the Lp group for fungi in oropharyngeal cultures. VAP was diagnosed in seven patients in the Lp group and in 10 patients among the controls. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre study, we could not demonstrate any difference between Lp299 and CHX used in oral care procedures regarding their impact on colonisation with emerging potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria in the oropharynx and trachea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01105819. Registered on 9 April 2010. First part: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN00472141. Registered on 22 November 2007 (published Critical Care 2008, 12:R136). BioMed Central 2018-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6204275/ /pubmed/30368249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2209-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Klarin, Bengt
Adolfsson, Anne
Torstensson, Anders
Larsson, Anders
Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title_full Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title_fullStr Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title_full_unstemmed Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title_short Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
title_sort can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6204275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30368249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2209-4
work_keys_str_mv AT klarinbengt canprobioticsbeanalternativetochlorhexidinefororalcareinthemechanicallyventilatedpatientamulticentreprospectiverandomisedcontrolledopentrial
AT adolfssonanne canprobioticsbeanalternativetochlorhexidinefororalcareinthemechanicallyventilatedpatientamulticentreprospectiverandomisedcontrolledopentrial
AT torstenssonanders canprobioticsbeanalternativetochlorhexidinefororalcareinthemechanicallyventilatedpatientamulticentreprospectiverandomisedcontrolledopentrial
AT larssonanders canprobioticsbeanalternativetochlorhexidinefororalcareinthemechanicallyventilatedpatientamulticentreprospectiverandomisedcontrolledopentrial