The Difference in Mouthwash Side Effects of Persica and Chlorhexidine for Preventing Ventilator-induced Pneumonia among Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

Q3 Nursing
F. H. Kiabi, A. Baradari, Alieh Zamani Kiasari, Mahdi Shahheidari
{"title":"The Difference in Mouthwash Side Effects of Persica and Chlorhexidine for Preventing Ventilator-induced Pneumonia among Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit","authors":"F. H. Kiabi, A. Baradari, Alieh Zamani Kiasari, Mahdi Shahheidari","doi":"10.2174/18749445-v16-e230607-2022-134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation. In recent years the use of herbal mouthwashes, due to antimicrobial effects and fewer side effects, has been studied in reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). In this study, the effect of Persica mouthwash in the prevention of VAP in ICU patients was compared with chlorhexidine.\n \n \n \n This study is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial among ICU patients under mechanical ventilation. Fifty patients were divided into two groups, the control group used 10 ml Chlorhexidine 2.0%, and the intervention group used 10cc Persica as a mouthwash. The incidence of pneumonia, mortality, length of hospital stays, mechanical ventilation duration, CPIS (Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score), and SOFA (sequential organ failure assessment) score and complications were evaluated among the two groups.\n \n \n \n The incidence of pneumonia, mortality, SOFA score, and CPIS in the two groups were not significantly different. Length of stay in the ICU and mechanical ventilation duration were also not significantly different in the two groups, p>0.05. Side effects with chlorhexidine were significantly more often than Persica (44% vs. 8%) p=0.008.\n \n \n \n The incidence of early pneumonia in patients with no baseline pneumonia did not differ with Persica and Chlorhexidine mouthwash. At the same time, the incidence of side effects caused by the use of Persica was significantly less.\n \n \n \n RCT2017022032676N1.\n","PeriodicalId":38960,"journal":{"name":"Open Public Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Public Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/18749445-v16-e230607-2022-134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation. In recent years the use of herbal mouthwashes, due to antimicrobial effects and fewer side effects, has been studied in reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). In this study, the effect of Persica mouthwash in the prevention of VAP in ICU patients was compared with chlorhexidine. This study is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial among ICU patients under mechanical ventilation. Fifty patients were divided into two groups, the control group used 10 ml Chlorhexidine 2.0%, and the intervention group used 10cc Persica as a mouthwash. The incidence of pneumonia, mortality, length of hospital stays, mechanical ventilation duration, CPIS (Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score), and SOFA (sequential organ failure assessment) score and complications were evaluated among the two groups. The incidence of pneumonia, mortality, SOFA score, and CPIS in the two groups were not significantly different. Length of stay in the ICU and mechanical ventilation duration were also not significantly different in the two groups, p>0.05. Side effects with chlorhexidine were significantly more often than Persica (44% vs. 8%) p=0.008. The incidence of early pneumonia in patients with no baseline pneumonia did not differ with Persica and Chlorhexidine mouthwash. At the same time, the incidence of side effects caused by the use of Persica was significantly less. RCT2017022032676N1.
百思嘉漱口水与氯己定预防重症监护室患者呼吸机所致肺炎的副作用差异
肺炎是ICU机械通气患者发病和死亡的常见原因。近年来,由于抗菌作用和较少的副作用,使用草药漱口水在减少呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率方面得到了研究。本研究比较了柏西漱口水与氯己定预防ICU患者VAP的效果。本研究是一项双盲、随机的ICU患者机械通气临床试验。50例患者分为两组,对照组使用2.0%氯己定10 ml,干预组使用10cc百思卡漱口水。观察两组患者肺炎发生率、死亡率、住院时间、机械通气时间、临床肺部感染评分(CPIS)、序贯器官衰竭评分(SOFA)及并发症。两组肺炎发生率、死亡率、SOFA评分、CPIS无显著差异。两组患者ICU住院时间和机械通气时间差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。氯己定的副作用发生率明显高于柏西卡(44% vs. 8%) p=0.008。无基线肺炎患者早期肺炎的发生率与百思嘉漱口水和氯己定漱口水没有差异。同时,因使用柏西卡引起的不良反应发生率明显降低。RCT2017022032676N1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Public Health Journal
Open Public Health Journal Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: The Open Public Health Journal is an Open Access online journal which publishes original research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, short articles and guest edited single topic issues in the field of public health. Topics covered in this interdisciplinary journal include: public health policy and practice; theory and methods; occupational health and education; epidemiology; social medicine; health services research; ethics; environmental health; adolescent health; AIDS care; mental health care. The Open Public Health Journal, a peer reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信