Evidence Hub

Oropharyngeal Interventions in Intubated Patients for Preventing Ventilator Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Multi-Variate Network Meta-Analysis Evaluating Pharmacological Agents

K. Sridharan, G. Sivaramakrishnan, Ghazi A. Alotaibi

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

20,650 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a prevalent and serious complication of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), contributing to significant mortality and increased healthcare resource utilization. While numerous oropharyngeal interventions exist, their comparative efficacy across critical outcomes remains uncertain due to a lack of direct comparisons in clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to September 2025 for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing topical oral interventions in intubated patients. The primary outcome was VAP incidence; secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, duration of MV, and ICU length of stay (LOS). Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed, and the certainty of evidence was assessed. The effect estimates were odds ratios (OR) for categorical outcomes and mean difference (MD) for numerical outcomes represented with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Ninety-six studies (20,650 patients) were included, evaluating 44 interventions. For VAP prevention, several interventions were superior to reference/control, including Antimicrobial combinations (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05–0.39), Povidone-iodine (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.21–0.98), and Chlorhexidine (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.95). However, only Chlorhexidine plus toothbrushing significantly reduced mortality (OR: 0.74, 95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 20,650 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free