This two-group pretest-posttest, single-blinded randomized clinical study was conducted in 2018 after obtaining the permission from the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Information Technology and the approval of the Ethics Committee of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (IR.ZAUMS.REC.1397.447). The study population comprised qualified patients admitted at ICU of Khatam al-Anbia Hospital in Zahedan. The inclusion criteria consisted of anesthetized patients aged 18-65 years, insertion of endotracheal tube on admission to ICU and its maintenance during the study, lack of immunoi, hepatitis, or HIV infection, scoring below 11 based on Beck oral assessment scale, no history of herbal allergy, no hospitalization prior to admission to ICU, no history/symptom of gastric content aspiration, no coagulation disorders, no removable denture, at least 24 hours passed the admission to ICU, no pregnancy, no chronic pulmonary disease (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and chest trauma), scoring below 5 based on the modified clinical pulmonary infection score at the onset of the study. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were patient’s death, patient’s transfer to other departments before the end of the study, any visible oral injury and bleeding caused by endotracheal intubation or oropharyngeal airway insertion after the start of the study, removal of endotracheal tube for any reason, endotracheal re-intubation or tracheostomy at the time of the study, diagnosis of aspiration symptoms after the start of the study as documented in the patient’s admission records, restriction in oral care practices and thus risk of aspiration, developing pneumonia 48 hours after starting the study as diagnosed by the physician, withdrawal of mechanical ventilation before 96 hours, and requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Using the following formula and the incidence rate of VAP reported by Yao et al. (2011), the sample size was estimated at 16 for each group within the confidence interval of 95% and statistical power of 95%. In order to ensure sample size adequacy and to take account of possible attrition, 35 patients were allocated to each group (total = 70) (
25).
P2 = 0.17
q2 = 0.83
P1 = 0.71
q1 = 0.29
Z1-α/2 = 1.64
Z1-β = 1.96
Data were gathered using a demographic and clinical information questionnaire, MCPIS, and BOAS (used to determine qualified subjects). The demographic questionnaire included information such as age, gender, history of smoking, cause of hospitalization, medical diagnosis, history of the underlying disease, as well as the type and dosage of antibiotic at the time of admission.
In fact, MCPIS is a standardized measure that has five criteria, including body temperature, pulmonary secretions, leukocyte count, PaO
2/FiO
2 ratio (mmHg), and chest radiography. A score of 0 - 2 is given to each criterion, and the maximum score of this instrument is 10. Scoring over 5 suggests the patient has developed VAP (
31). Sabery et al. (
32) confirmed the reliability of this tool based on Cronbach’s alpha and internal correlation coefficient (91%). Sensitivity and specificity of MCPIS have been reported to vary from 65 to 89.3% and from 58 to 100%, respectively (
33). To ascertain the reliability of the examining physician, a pulmonologist observed all chest X-rays and confirmed the presence of pulmonary infiltrates.
Another scale was BOAS, which has 5 sub-scales (lips, gingiva and oral mucosa, teeth, tongue, and saliva), is scored on a 4-point Likert scale and scored 1 - 4. The total score of this scale ranges from 5 to 20. The lower the score is, the better the oral health of the patient will be (meaning no problem or disorder). Conversely, higher scores indicate more alarming degrees of disorder. Specifically, 5 means no disorder, 6 - 10 suggests mild disorder, 11 - 15 shows moderate disorder, and 16 - 20 represents severe disorder. Indeed, BOAS was used to enroll eligible patients. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.83 for this scale.
After obtaining the necessary permission to initiate the research, the researcher introduced herself to the head nurse and explained the purpose of the study. Next, once the study procedure was described, the informed consent was acquired from the companions of patients who met the inclusion criteria. Using convenience sampling, qualified patients were enrolled and then randomly divided into the intervention and control groups through coin flipping (heads = intervention group, tails = control group). For five consecutive days, oral care was provided twice a day (every 12 hours) using miswak in the intervention group and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash in the control group. The oral care intervention was conducted as follows.
The patient was initially put in a proper position. In the absence of medical prohibition, the head of the bed was raised by 30 degrees; in case of medical prohibition, the patient was laid on one side and was supported by placing a pillow behind him/her and turning his/her head to one side. After washing her hands, the researcher wore gloves, glasses, and a mask to place the absorbent pad under the patient’s mouth. Once the number on the endotracheal tube and the endotracheal cuff pressure were checked, the patient’s mouth was opened and the airway, if any, was removed and cleaned. For oral care, the patient’s oral cavity was divided into four sections (top right, bottom right, top left, and bottom left). After that miswak was wetted using cool water, which had been boiled for 15 minutes, it was used to gently brush back and forth all interior, exterior, and masticatory surfaces of the teeth. In the control group, the oral care procedure was similar to the intervention group except that, instead of miswak, a cotton swab dipped in 0.2% chlorhexidine was administered. Next, in both groups, 20 cc of normal saline was poured into the oral cavity, the tracheal secretions were immediately suctioned, and the lips were cleaned. Eventually, the strip of the endotracheal tube was replaced and, using an applicator, a small amount of Vaseline jelly was applied to the lip surface and the patient was put back in his/her rest position. Before each intervention (miswak or chlorhexidine mouthwash), all areas of the mouth were examined by flashlight to identify coagulum, redness, ulcers, and bleeding. Individuals with a score of 11 or higher at any stage of oral health assessment were excluded. The patients in both groups were hospitalized for the first 48 hours and then examined daily by an anesthesiologist; if a patient developed pneumonia during the first 48 hours, he/she would be excluded from the study. In this research, no such instance took place.
Based on the five criteria of body temperature, pulmonary secretions, leukocyte count, PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mmHg), and chest radiography, MCPIS was completed for each patient during the first 12 hours before secretion sampling in order to diagnose possible pneumonia. The researcher filled out MCPIS again on the fifth day after the intervention. Finally, an intensivist confirmed or rejected pneumonia diagnoses. On the fifth day too, oral care was administered in both groups. To meet the blinding criterion, patients and the physician responsible for pneumonia diagnosis were not aware of the distribution of the two study groups.
Data were analyzed in SPSS 22 using chi-square test (to compare the two groups in terms of gender, cause of hospitalization, type of antibiotic used, smoking, and history of ICU hospitalization), independent t-test (to compare the two groups in terms of age, level of consciousness, and antibiotic dosage), and Fisher’s exact test (to compare the two groups in terms of VAP incidence). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.