4.6 Article

Selective decontamination of subglottic area in mechanically ventilated patients with multiple trauma

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 432-437

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-002-1238-1

关键词

ventilator-associated pneumonia; mechanical ventilation; selective decontamination; chemo-prophylaxis; multiple trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether selective decontamination locally in the subglottic area (SDSA) reduces tracheal colonization and prevents ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with multiple trauma. Design and setting: A prospective randomized, controlled, clinical study in a 14-bed general intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients: 79 consecutive multiple trauma patients admitted to the ICU who were expected to be mechanically ventilated for more than 5 days; 61 patients completed the protocol. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive SDSA using a continuous infusion of a suspension containing three nonabsorbable antibiotics (polymyxin, tombramycin, and amphotericin B; n=30) or placebo (n=31). Measurements: The incidence of bronchial and gastric colonization and the number of cases of VAP were recorded. Gastric fluid and tracheal secretion cultures were obtained soon after intubation and thereafter every 4 days. Etiological diagnosis of VAP was based on samples taken by a specific protected double catheter set. Results: VAP developed in 5 of 30 (16.6%) patients receiving SDSA and 16 of 31 (51.6%) patients receiving placebo. Negative bronchial secretion cultures were found in 14 of 30 (46.6%) patients in the SDSA group and in only 3 of 31 (9.6%) patients in the control group. No patient with negative bronchial secretion culture developed VAP. No significant differences in outcome were fund. Conclusions: The SDSA is an effective and safe type of chemoprophylaxis against tracheal colonization and can significantly reduce the incidence of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients with multiple trauma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据