University of Maryland School of Medicine logo
Emergency Medicine
All Departments
UMSOM Assistant
UMEM Educational Pearls
  • Home
  • Departments
  • Emergency Medicine
  • CME
  • UMEM Educational Pearls
  • CME
  • Courses and Conferences
  • Free Open Access Medical Education
  • UMEM Educational Pearls

Search

Title: Updates in preventative strategies in the ICU

Category: Critical Care

Keywords: VAP, chlorhexidine baths, subglottic suctioning (PubMed Search)

Posted: 2/10/2015 by Feras Khan, MD

Updates in preventative strategies in the ICU

Preventing Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

  • Traditionally ICUs use techniques such as head of bed elevation> 30 degrees, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, reduced sedation, and controlling cuff pressure between 20-30 cm H2O to reduce VAP
  • A new trial confirms that subglottic suctioning also reduces VAP
  • Endotracheal tubes are made with a suction line along the edge with fenestrations below the vocal cords and above the cuff
  • This is hooked to wall suction removing secretions before they are aspirated
  • VAP rates are very low in the US (most likely due to under-reporting)
  • It is reported at around 15 VAPs/ 1000 ventilator days in Europe

The trial

  • 5 ICUs in Belgium; 352 total patients with suctioning vs control were randomized
  • Reduced incidence of confirmed VAP 9% vs 18%, decrease ventilator days 10 vs 20 and antibiotic use 7% absolute reduction

Bottom Line

  • More expensive around $20 or more vs $1 for a regular ETT
  • NNT around 11 to prevent one VAP: it is cost efficient
  • Use them in patients who will remain intubated for > 48hrs (not elective surgical patients)

Daily bathing with chlorhexidine does not reduce health care associated infections

  • It is believed that daily bathing with chlorhexidine antibiotic washes decrease rates of infection in the ICU; this is debatable

The trial

  • One center, 5 ICUs, 9340 patients
  • 10 week cleaning period followed by a two week washout then crossover to the alternate treatment (non-antibiotic washes)
  • Looking for CLABSIs, CAUTIs, VAP and C. diff infections
  • 55 infections occurred in the chlorhexidine group; 60 in the control goup.
  • 2.86 per 1000 patient days (chlorhexidine group) vs 2.9 per 1000 patient days (control)

Bottom Line

  • Does not appear to be helpful (perhaps specific patient groups such as bone marrow units may benefit)
  • More expensive to use these washes and can lead to resistance
  • Very well designed study with a variety of ICUs used (although one center)

References

Chlorhexidine Bathing and Health Care Associated InfectionsA Randomized Clinical Trial

Michael J. Noto, MD, PhD1; Henry J. Domenico, MS2; Daniel W. Byrne, MS2; Tom Talbot, MD, MPH1; Todd W. Rice, MD, MSc1; Gordon R. Bernard, MD1; Arthur P. Wheeler, MD1
JAMA. 2015;313(4):369-378. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.18400.

Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):22-30. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000674.

Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia and ventilator-associated conditions: a randomized controlled trial with subglottic secretion suctioning*.

Damas P1, Frippiat F, Ancion A, Canivet JL, Lambermont B, Layios N, Massion P, Morimont P, Nys M, Piret S, Lancellotti P, Wiesen P, D'orio V, Samalea N,Ledoux D.

University of Maryland School of Medicine logo
  • Departments
  • Programs
  • Research Centers
  • Institutes
  • Graduate Education
  • CIBR Cores
  • Offices of the Dean
    • University of Maryland, Baltimore
    • University of Maryland Medical Center
    • Medical Alumni Association of the University of Maryland
    • Health Sciences and Human Services Library
University of Maryland School of Medicine
655 W. Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Contact Us

© University of Maryland School of Medicine

    • Webmaster
    • Web Accessibility
    • Site Index
    • UMB Hotline
    • Employment
    • Map