Oropharyngeal irrigation to prevent ventilator-associated-pneumonia: Comparing potassium permangenate with chlorhexidine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections among bedridden patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Colonization of mouth and pharynx by pathogenic bacteria and their aspiration into the lower respiratory tract is an important step in pathogenesis of hospital-acquired pneumonia. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of chlorhexidine and potassium permanganate mouthwashes in preventing incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients in the ICU. Methods: This study is a clinical trial, conducted on 150 patients on ventilator in ICU. Patients were divided into three groups: Chlorhexidine group, potassium permanganate group, and control group. Mouthwashing three times a day, each time 5 min for 1 week by sterile gas with 10 cc solution of chlorhexidine, potassium permanganate, or placebo, was performed. Finally, pneumonia incidence was recorded, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. The data were analyzed by SPSS software version 20. Results: In the present study, 28 cases of pneumonia among 150 patients on ventilator were investigated. There were 15 (30%), 6 (12%), and 7 (14%) incidences of pneumonia in control, chlorhexidine, and permanganate group, respectively. Pneumonia incidence in these groups differed significantly (P = 0.041). Conclusions: The use of common mouthwashes, especially chlorhexidine solution, for washing oropharynx of ICU patients, can decrease pneumonia incidence, especially in patients under ventilation. Thus, washing and sterilizing mouth of patients with mouthwashes is recommended due to the high risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia in these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".