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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |