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.
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.
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.
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.