Removal of Chlorhexidine for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention with a Dentist Composing the Intensive Care Unit Team

Purpose: An association between the use of chlorhexidine in mechanically ventilated patients for the purpose of oral hygiene and the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) lacks conclusive evidence in the literature. Therefore, this study aims to assess the clinical impact of such practice. This evaluation will consider that retention factors, infection foci, and oral biofilm will be regularly removed by a dentist.

Patients and methods: In this retrospective cohort study, a comparison was made between two groups, one using chlorhexidine and the other using saline solution. Patients from both groups included in this study were admitted between January 2016 to March 2018. Data such as the incidence of VAP, duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), length of stay (LOS), and mortality rate (MR) were collected and compared between the groups. Only patients aged 18 or older, under mechanical ventilation for more than 48 consecutive hours were included. Were excluded from this study patients with a diagnosis of VAP or other pulmonary infection upon admission or within the first 48 hours of hospitalization. Also not included were those who stayed in the ICU for less than 48 hours. Dental treatment was carried out addressing the regular removal of retention factors, potential oral infection foci, and oral biofilm by a dentist. Additionally, at each appointment, the visible biofilm was removed by the dentist themselves, and the maintenance of oral hygiene was performed daily by the nursing staff. For the statistical analysis the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used for comparisons between groups regarding LOS and DMV. Additionally, the associations between groups and VAP, outcomes (discharge or death), and diseases were analyzed using the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. A significance level of 5% was assumed.

Results: In both evaluated groups, each consisting of 36 patients, the incidence of VAP was identical at 2.8%. Specifically, the chlorhexidine group had an incidence of 2.105 VAP cases per 1000 days of mechanical ventilation (MV), while the placebo group had 2.865 VAP cases per 1000 days of MV (p = 1.000). No significant difference between groups regarding LOS (p = 0.5694) and DMV (p = 0.1136) was found. There was also no significant association between the MR in the two groups (47.2% chlorhexidine, 36.1% placebo) (p=0.3390).

Conclusion: When intensive oral care is performed, the use of chlorhexidine shows no significant change in VAP incidence, MR, LOS, and DMV. Therefore, the dentist, as part of the multiprofessional team, should decide on its use.