-
1.
Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases.
Kumbargere Nagraj, S, Eachempati, P, Paisi, M, Nasser, M, Sivaramakrishnan, G, Verbeek, JH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(10):CD013686
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many dental procedures produce aerosols (droplets, droplet nuclei and splatter) that harbour various pathogenic micro-organisms and may pose a risk for the spread of infections between dentist and patient. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater concern about this risk. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.
-
2.
Infectious Complications in Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Peripherally-Inserted Central Catheters with Other Central Catheters.
Mateo-Lobo, R, Riveiro, J, Vega-Piñero, B, Botella-Carretero, JI
Nutrients. 2019;(9)
Abstract
BACKGROUND Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy. There is still controversy regarding the possibility that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may diminish catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rates. METHODS We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting the rates of CRBSI with HPN. Study selection was performed independently by three investigators. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus or by arbitration by an author not involved in the search. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL 5.3 with the quality effects model. RESULTS Screening of the article titles and abstracts yielded 134 full text articles for evaluation. Only three prospective studies that included appropriate data were considered for the final analysis. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.41 (0.14-1.17) for PICC vs. tunneled catheters. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.16 (0.04-0.64) for PICC vs. ports. The relative risk of the thrombosis rate was 3.16 (0.20-49.67) for PICCs vs. tunneled. CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to show a difference in CRBSI rates between PICCs and tunneled catheters. On the other hand, PICCs showed lower CRBSI rates than ports. There was also no difference in the rate of catheter-related thrombosis and mechanical complications.
-
3.
Neutropenic diets to prevent cancer infections: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sonbol, MB, Jain, T, Firwana, B, Hilal, T, Deleon, T, Murad, A, Murad, MH, Khera, N
BMJ supportive & palliative care. 2019;(4):425-433
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiple studies have questioned the benefit of neutropenic diets in decreasing infections in patients with cancer, but recent surveys showed that such diets are still prescribed. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of neutropenic diet in decreasing infection and mortality in neutropenic patients with cancer with neutropenia. This review is an update of a previously published systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched different databases to identify comparative studies that investigated the effect of neutropenic diet compared with regular diet in neutropenic adults and children with cancer. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses using the Der-Simonian and Laird method to pool treatment effects from included studies. Outcomes of interest were mortality, bacteremia/fungemia, major infections, quality of life, and the composite outcome for neutropenic fever and/or infection. RESULTS We included six studies (five randomised) with 1116 patients, with 772 (69.1%) having underwent haematopoietic cell transplant. There was no statistically significant difference between neutropenic diet and regular diet in the rates of major infections (relative risk [RR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42) or bacteremia/fungemia (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.53). In haematopoietic cell transplant patients, neutropenic diet was associated with a slightly higher risk of infections (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54). No difference in mortality was seen between neutropenic diet and regular diet (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.50). CONCLUSION There is currently no evidence to support the use of neutropenic diet or other food restrictions in neutropenic patients with cancer. Patients and clinicians should continue to follow the safe food-handling guidelines as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
-
4.
Efficacy of Probiotics and Prebiotics in Prevention of Infectious Complications Following Hepatic Resections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Gan, Y, Su, S, Li, B, Fang, C
Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD. 2019;:205-211
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Infections occurring after hepatic resection cause significant morbidity, mortality, and prolonged hospitalization. Probiotics and prebiotics are considered to offer protection against post-operative infections. We aimed to determine the effect of probiotics and prebiotics on the post-operative infection rate after hepatic resection by conducting a systematic review and a meta-analysis. METHOD We searched various databases, namely, the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry (CENTRAL), for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of probiotics and/or prebiotics on the infection rate following hepatic resection. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS A total of 4 studies comprising 205 patients were included for our meta-analysis. The infection rates in the probiotic group and placebo group were 11.7% and 30.3%, respectively (p<0.001). The pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.128-0.730). Subgroup analysis indicated that the wound infection rate in the probiotic group (5.3%) was significantly lower than that in the placebo group (RR: 0.387, 95% CI: 0.155-0.970, p=0.043). Furthermore, probiotics/prebiotics decreased the duration of hospital stay (-0.57 days; 95% CI: -0.861 to -0.274; p<0.001) and antibiotic use (mean difference: -3.89 days, 95% CI: -4.17 to -3.60; p<0.001). There was no significant statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSION Our findings show that administration of probiotics and/or prebiotics prior to operation day decreases the infection rate post-liver resection and could shorten the duration of hospitalization and antibiotics use.
-
5.
Probiotic and synbiotic therapy in critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Manzanares, W, Lemieux, M, Langlois, PL, Wischmeyer, PE
Critical care (London, England). 2016;:262
Abstract
BACKGROUND Critical illness is characterized by a loss of commensal flora and an overgrowth of potentially pathogenic bacteria, leading to a high susceptibility to nosocomial infections. Probiotics are living non-pathogenic microorganisms, which may protect the gut barrier, attenuate pathogen overgrowth, decrease bacterial translocation and prevent infection. The purpose of this updated systematic review is to evaluate the overall efficacy of probiotics and synbiotic mixtures on clinical outcomes in critical illness. METHODS Computerized databases from 1980 to 2016 were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating clinical outcomes associated with probiotic therapy as a single strategy or in combination with prebiotic fiber (synbiotics). Overall number of new infections was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and diarrhea. Subgroup analyses were performed to elucidate the role of other key factors such as probiotic type and patient mortality risk on the effect of probiotics on outcomes. RESULTS Thirty trials that enrolled 2972 patients were identified for analysis. Probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in infections (risk ratio 0.80, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.95, P = 0.009; heterogeneity I (2) = 36 %, P = 0.09). Further, a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was found (risk ratio 0.74, 95 % CI 0.61, 0. 90, P = 0.002; I (2) = 19 %). No effect on mortality, LOS or diarrhea was observed. Subgroup analysis indicated that the greatest improvement in the outcome of infections was in critically ill patients receiving probiotics alone versus synbiotic mixtures, although limited synbiotic trial data currently exists. CONCLUSION Probiotics show promise in reducing infections, including VAP in critical illness. Currently, clinical heterogeneity and potential publication bias reduce strong clinical recommendations and indicate further high quality clinical trials are needed to conclusively prove these benefits.
-
6.
Probiotics for preventing urinary tract infections in adults and children.
Schwenger, EM, Tejani, AM, Loewen, PS
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(12):CD008772
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions. OBJECTIVES Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations? SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
-
7.
Prebiotics in healthy infants and children for prevention of acute infectious diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lohner, S, Küllenberg, D, Antes, G, Decsi, T, Meerpohl, JJ
Nutrition reviews. 2014;(8):523-31
Abstract
Prebiotics, defined as nondigestible dietary ingredients resistant to gastric acidity and fermented by the intestinal flora, are used to positively influence the composition of intestinal flora, thereby promoting health benefits. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of prebiotics in the prevention of acute infectious diseases in children. A systematic literature search was conducted using the Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library's Central databases. Finally, five randomized controlled trials, all of them investigating infants and children 0-24 months of age, were included in the review. Pooled estimates from three studies revealed a statistically significant decrease in the number of infectious episodes requiring antibiotic therapy in the prebiotic group as compared with the placebo group (rate ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.77). Studies available indicate that prebiotics may also be effective in decreasing the rate of overall infections in infants and children 0-24 months of age. Further studies in the age group 3-18 years are required to determine whether prebiotics can be considered for the prevention of acute infectious diseases in the older pediatric population.
-
8.
Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
Lipp, A, Lusardi, G
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(11):CD005571
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a surgical procedure performed to maintain nutrition in the short- or long-term. During the procedure, a feeding tube that delivers either a liquid diet, or medication, via a clean or sterile delivery system, is placed surgically through the anterior abdominal wall. Those undergoing PEG tube placement are often vulnerable to infection because of age, compromised nutritional intake, immunosuppression, or underlying disease processes such as malignancy and diabetes mellitus. The increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contributes both an additional risk to the placement procedure, and to the debate surrounding antibiotic prophylaxis for PEG tube placement. The aim of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis is to establish a bactericidal concentration of an antimicrobial drug in the patient's serum and tissues, via a brief course of an appropriate agent, by the time of PEG tube placement in order to prevent any peristomal infections that might result from the procedure. OBJECTIVES To establish whether prophylactic use of systemic antimicrobials reduces the risk of peristomal infection in people undergoing placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. SEARCH METHODS In August 2013, for this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid Medline; Ovid Medline (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of prophylactic antimicrobials during PEG tube placement, with no restrictions regarding language of publication, date of publication, or publication status. Both review authors independently selected studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS One new trial was identified and included in this update, bringing the total to 13 eligible RCTs, with a total of 1637 patients. All trials reported peristomal infection as an outcome. A pooled analysis of 12 trials resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of peristomal infection with prophylactic antibiotics (1271 patients pooled: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50). The newly identified trial compared IV antibiotics with antibiotics via PEG and could not be included in the meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Administration of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for PEG tube placement reduces peristomal infection.
-
9.
Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
Lipp, A, Lusardi, G
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2006;(4):CD005571
Abstract
BACKGROUND Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEG) maintain nutrition in the short or long term. A PEG is a feeding tube, placed surgically through the anterior abdominal wall, which delivers a liquid diet, or medication, via a clean or sterile delivery system. Those undergoing PEG placement are often vulnerable to infection because of age, compromised nutritional intake, immunosuppression and underlying disease processes such as malignancy and diabetes mellitus. The increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contributes both an additional risk to the placement procedure, and also to the debate surrounding antibiotic prophylaxis for PEG placement. The aim of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis is to establish a bactericidal concentration of an antimicrobial drug in the patients serum and tissues, via a brief course of an appropriate agent, by the time of PEG placement. OBJECTIVES The review seeks to establish whether prophylactic use of systemic antimicrobials reduces the risk of peristomal infection in people undergoing placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (July 2006); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2); handsearched wound care journals relevant conference proceedings, and bibliographies of relevant publications identified by these strategies for further studies; and contacted manufacturers and distributors of PEG products. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of prophylactic antimicrobials for PEG placement, with no restrictions for language, date or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Both authors performed data extraction and assessment of study quality. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS We identified 10 eligible RCTs evaluating prophylactic antimicrobials in 1100 patients. All trials reported peristomal infection as an outcome, and a pooled analysis resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of peristomal infection with prophylactic antibiotics (pooled OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.44). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Administration of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for PEG placement reduces peristomal infection.