Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 54019

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : UC40 - UC43 Full Version

Efficacy of Gentamicin versus Chlorhexidine as a Sole Prophylactic Oral Decontaminant in Reducing the Incidence of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia: A Randomised Clinical Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
Matendra Singh Yadav, Vipin Kumar Singh, DK Singh

1. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Additional Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Director Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhatinda, Punjab, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Vipin Kumar Singh,
Additional Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, King George’s Medical
University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.


Introduction: Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is the second most common nosocomial infection. Aspiration of bacteria from the upper digestive tract is important in the pathogenesis of this infection. Oral decontamination using antiseptic like chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of VAP but not mortality. There is conflicting results about oral decontamination with antibiotics in preventing VAP, some suggesting benefit and others showing no benefit.

Aim: To use two different prophylactic oral decontaminant, gentamicin and chlorhexidine, to compare the incidence of VAP, prevalence of bacterial flora, duration of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and mortality.

Materials and Methods: This double-blind, randomised, clinical study was conducted at Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India, from January 2017 to December 2018. Patients intubated within 24 hours of admission and who needed mechanical ventilation with an expected duration of more than 48 hours were included. All the adult patients between age group 18-50 years were studied. Patients were randomised to receive either Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis (TAP) with 2% gentamicin (Group G) or 2% chlorhexidine (Group C). Patients were followed until extubation or death. Sequential cultures from endotracheal tube were sent on days 3,7,14, and 21, and for oropharyngeal swab culture were sent on days 0, 3,7,14 and 21. VAP was diagnosed with the help of Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS).

Results: Out of 151 patients, 82 patients were in group G (2% gentamicin) and 69 in group C (2% chlorhexidine). On follow-up of various interval among both the groups, CPIS increased with ICU stay but incidence of VAP was comparable between the groups (50% vs 71%, p-value=0.009). Pseudomonas was found to be most prevalent bacteria among both the groups. Discharge rate from ICU was higher in group G (54.9%) than group C (52.2%) (p-value=0.744). The mortality rate was higher in the group C (43.9%) than group G (44.9%) (p-value=0.744).

Conclusion: Prophylactic oral-decontamination with gentamicin or chlorhexidine does not reduce incidence of VAP and outcome among ICU patients. Gentamicin could be a better option for patients on ventilator because it may lead to less colonisation of Pseudomonas in oral cavity along with lower CPIS in the later stages of VAP.


Clinical pulmonary infection score, Oral decontamination, Outcome

Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients on ventilator. Its incidence ranges from 9-27%, with a crude mortality exceeding 50% (1),(2),(3),(4). Aspiration of secretion containing different bacteria from the upper digestive tract to respiratory tract is important route of pathogenesis (4),(5). VAP is usually diagnosed on the basis of a combination of criteria such as the presence of fever and leukocytosis, the results of tracheal-aspirate cultures, and the presence of infiltrates on a chest radiograph (6). Because VAP has been associated with increased morbidity, longer hospital stay, increased mortality and increased healthcare costs, its prevention is a major challenge for intensive care medicine.

Two different interventions intended to decrease the oral bacterial load are Selective Decontamination of the Digestive tract (SDD) through administration of non absorbable antibiotics by mouth or nasogastric tube, and oral decontamination with topical oral application of antibiotics or antiseptics. Previous meta-analysis of SDD found significant reduction in VAP incidence among treated patients (7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12),(13),(14),(15). However, this approach of oral decontamination with antibiotics has limitations because of the concern of the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Therefore oral decontamination alone may be a more attractive option because it requires only a fraction of the antibiotics used in SDD.

Recommendations for preventing nosocomial pneumonia in acutely ill patients from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) state only to implement a comprehensive oral hygiene program which may include an antiseptic agent like chlorhexidine gluconate, while, there is no recommendation for routine use of topical antimicrobial agents for oral decontamination (16),(17),(18),(19). Trials on oral decontamination using antibiotics have generated conflicting results (20),(21). In contrast to antibiotics, antiseptics act rapidly at multiple target sites and have less chance of drug resistance. Recently a meta-analysis of four trials on chlorhexidine failed to show a significant reduction in VAP incidence (22). However, two further meta-analysis on chlorhexidine for prevention of VAP suggested benefit from this approach (23).

So, the conflict about the routine use of antibiotics or antiseptic for oral decontamination for VAP-prevention remains unsolved. To the best of our knowledge no trial directly compared antiseptic with antibiotic oral decontamination. So, a further study comparing antibiotics with antiseptic oral decontamination while incorporating stringent infection surveillance is the need of the hour. This clinical trial aimed to compare oral decontamination with gentamicin and chlorhexidine to prevent VAP incidence. The primary outcome measure was to compare incidence of VAP. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of various bacteria in the endotracheal tube aspirate cultures, and the mortality rate.

Material and Methods

This double-blind, randomised interventional study was conducted from 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2018 in the ICU of Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from ethical committee of institute prior to the study (ECR/526/Inst/UP/2014).

Inclusion criteria: Patients in the age group of 18-50 years admitted in ICU and who intubated within 24 hours of admission and needed mechanical ventilation with an expected duration of atleast two days were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with oral malignancy, plaque, submucosal fibrosis, immunocompromised patients, patients with limited mouth opening where oral intubation is not possible, no prophylactic antibiotics were administrated through the nasogastric tube and history of allergy were excluded from the study.

Sample size estimation: Sample size was estimated using the following formula:


DEFF=Design effect (24)
N=Population size
p=Estimated proportion (24)
d=desired absolute precision or absolute level of precision
z=level of confidence according to the standard normal distribution (for a level of confidence of 95%), z=1.96

Population size (for finite population correction factor) (N): 1000000
(25) Incidence of early-onset VAP (within 96 hours) in the population (p): 27%±8
Confidence limits as % of 100 (absolute +/-%)(d): 8%
Design effect (for cluster surveys-DEFF): 1

Considering 95% confidence interval and 8% margin of error, total calculated sample size was 120 (60 in each group). Patients were randomised through simple randomised sampling to receive either TAP with 2% gentamicin (Group G) or to 2% chlorhexidine (Group C) (Table/Fig 1). Studied drugs were applied in the buccal cavities with gloved finger every 6 hours after intubation for study duration. The application of the drugs were started within 24 hours of intubation and administered six hourly (four times daily), after removing remnants of the previous dose with a gauze moistened with saline (NaCl 0.9%). Patients were followed until extubation or death. Because 95% of the first episodes of VAP occur within the first three weeks of ventilation, application of studied drugs were limited to 21 days (26).

Demographic data (like age, sex, medical specialty, pre-existent diseases, and length of hospital stay before admission to ICU) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (19) were recorded on admission. Routine investigations along with sample such as blood, urine, sputum or endotracheal aspirate, oropharyngeal swab were obtained at the time of admission or within half an hour of administration of empirical antibiotics therapy in all the patients. Sequential cultures for oropharyngeal swab culture and endotracheal aspirate culture were sent on days 0,3,7,14, and 21 so on as per the ICU protocols. All participating ICUs had standard care protocols in which a semirecumbent body position with head elevation of 30o or greater was maintained, if possible. The CPIS was recorded to diagnose VAP. It includes six variables-fever, leukocytosis, tracheal aspirates, oxygenation, radiographic infiltrates, and semiquantitative cultures of tracheal aspirates with Gram stain. It was calculated at days 0,3,6,9,12,15,18, and 21. VAP was positive if the subject had a CPIS greater than or equal to six (27).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses was performed using the statistical software Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software for MS-windows. Descriptive frequencies were expressed using mean (standard deviation) and median (range). Difference between means of continuous variables were compared using the unpaired Student’s t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), as applicable, and that of categorical variables with the Chi-square test. The critical value of ‘p’ indicating the probability of significant difference was taken as <0.05 for comparison.


The basic demographic data as well as disease severity was similar in both the groups (Table/Fig 2).

CPIS was comparable (50% vs 71%, p-value=0.009) in both the groups except on day 9 and 12, where it was significant in the chlorhexidine group (p-value <0.05) (Table/Fig 3).

On comparing the total oropharyngeal swab culture between the two groups, prevalence of Pseudomonas was found to be significantly lower in the gentamicin group (p-value <0.05) (Table/Fig 4).

Prevalence of different species of bacteria in endotracheal aspirate culture was similar in both the groups (p-value>0.05) (Table/Fig 5).

Final outcome variables for all the patients were classified as either discharge from ICU, death or Discharge on Patient’s Request (DOPR) for both the groups. Deaths in groups G and C was 43.9% and 44.9%, respectively. Both groups were comparable for outcome variable (Table/Fig 6).


Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is the most frequent infection in mechanically ventilated patients. The risk of developing VAP increases by 1-3% for each day spent on the ventilator (28),(29). The pathogenesis is thought to involve microaspiration of oropharyngeal microorganisms, which enter into the lower respiratory tract via leakage around the endotracheal tube cuff or directly through the tube.

The current study included the patients, who were on mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours, hereby a total 82 patients were selected for oral decontamination with gentamicin and 69 patients with chlorhexidine. It was found that mean CPIS scores at day 9 and 12 in group G were significantly less than group C. This means that gentamicin significantly reduced the mean CPIS score. However, the mean CPIS scores later were not significantly different. The possible explanation for these results might be that with increase a duration of ICU stay, multiple resistant bacteria colonised the patients airway. Therefore, gentamicin could not provide protection against these resistant organisms. Also, tracheal growth of bacteria was not inhibited because antibiotic was used locally in oropharynx. In contrast, a randomised controlled trial was conducted by Bergmans DCJJ et al., to prevent VAP by modulation of oropharyngeal colonisation with TAP (gentamicin/colistin/vancomycin), without influencing gastric and intestinal colonisation and without systematic prophylaxis showed that modulation of oropharyngeal colonisation with antibiotics effectively reduce the incidence of late onset VAP (30).

Oropharyngeal swab culture results showed significant reduction in prevalence of Pseudomonas in gentamicin group. While the difference in prevalence of other bacteria were not statistically significant. Similar findings were reported by Rodriguez-Roldan JM et al., they found that selective oral decontamination with a paste having amphotericin B, colistin sulphate and tobramycin combination reduced the colonisation and pneumonia as compared to placebo (21). The current study shows that prevalence of various bacteria in tracheal aspirate was similar among both the groups. This shows that oral decontamination with either of the selected drugs does not significantly modulate the incidence of one particular bacteria. Length of ICU stay and final outcome among both the groups were comparable. These findings are supported by Abele- Horn M et al., (20), they conducted a randomised controlled trial using amphotericin B, colistin, and tobramycin combination and applied it to the oropharynx. They concluded that Selective Oral Decontamination (SOD) significantly reduced the colonisation and pneumonia, while, the length of stay in the ICU, duration of ventilation, and mortality were similar. A meta-analysis by Chan EY et al., concluded that oral decontamination of mechanicallyventilated adults using antiseptics is associated with a lower risk of VAP. Neither antiseptic nor antibiotic oral decontamination reduced mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation or stay in the ICU (31).

Previous studies used lower concentration of chlorhexidine (0.12%, 0.2%). That is why chlorhexidine was not effective in most of the trials. The index study used a higher concentration of chlorhexidine (2%). Oral gentamicin was used for digestive decontamination to reduce resistant bacterial loads in surgical patients. Current study is novel as oral gentamicin was used for selective oral decontamination.


This study did not include a control group to know the significant effect of gentamicin or chlorhexidine for VAP prevention in comparison with a placebo. Secondly, development of resistance among bacteria against antibiotics were not taken into consideration. Current study used gentamicin only, as it covers preferentially gram negative bacteria. A combination of antibiotics along with antifungal agent may cover broader spectrum of bacteria and fungi.


This study showed that prophylactic oral-decontamination with gentamicin is non superior to chlorhexidine in reducing the incidence of VAP as well as outcome among patients on ventilator but gentamicin could be a better option as it leads to less colonisation of Pseudomonas in oral cavity along with lower CPIS in the later stages of VAP.


Chastre J, Fagon JY. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:867-03. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rello J, Ollendorf DA, Oster G, Vera-Llonch M, Bellm L, Redman R, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large US database. Chest. 2002;122:2115-21. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Besser R, Bridges C, Hajjeh R; CDC; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated pneumonia, 2003: Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53:1-36.
American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171:388-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
Estes RJ, Meduri GU. The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: I. Mechanisms of bacterial transcolonisation and airway inoculation. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21:365-83. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rea-Neto A, Youssef NC, Tuche F, Brunkhorst F, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review of the literature. Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R56. [crossref] [PubMed]
Stoutenbeek C, van Saene HK, Miranda DR, Zandstra DF. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonisation and infection rate in multiple trauma patients. Intensive Care Med. 1984;10:185-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Vandenbroucke JP. Effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on respiratory tract infections and mortality in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 1991;338:859-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. BMJ. 1993;307:525-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Griffith L, Lee HN, Guyatt GH, et al. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract. An overview. Chest. 1994;105:1221-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kollef MH. The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory tract infections. A meta-analysis. Chest. 1994;105:1101-08. [crossref] [PubMed]
Hurley JC. Prophylaxis with enteral antibiotics in ventilated patients: selective decontamination or selective cross-infection? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:941-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
D’Amico R, Pifferi S, Leonetti C, Torri V, Tinazzi A, Liberati A, et al. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1998;316:1275-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
Nathens AB, Marshall JC. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in surgical patients: A systematic review of the evidence. Arch Surg. 1999;134:170-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
Liberati A, D’Amico R, Pifferi, Torri V, Brazzi L. Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000022. [crossref]
Schleder B, Stott K, Lloyd RC. The effect of a comprehensive oral care protocol on patients at risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Advocate Healthcare.2002;4:27-30.
Yoneyama T, Yoshida M, Ohrui T, Mukaiyama H, Okamoto H, Hoshiba K, et al. Oral care reduces pneumonia in older patients in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:430-33. [crossref] [PubMed]
DeRiso AJ 2nd, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, Justice JW, Peterson AC. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infections and nonprophylactic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest. 1996;109:1556-61. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bergmans D, Bonten M, Gaillard C, Paling JC, van der Geest S, van Tiel FH, et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:382-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
Abele-Horn M, Dauber A, Bauernfeind A, Russwurm W, Seyfarth-Metzger I, Gleich P, et al., Decrease in nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients by Selective Oropharyngeal Decontamination (SOD). Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:187-95. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rodriguez-Roldan JM, Altuna-Cuesta A, López A, Carrillo A, Garcia J, León J, et al. Prevention of nosocomial lung infection in ventilated patients: use of an antimicrobial pharyngeal nonabsorbable paste. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1239-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
Pineda LA, Saliba RG, El Solh AA. Effect of oral decontamination with chlorhexidine on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2006;10:R35. [crossref] [PubMed]
Chlebicki MP, Safdar N. Topical chlorhexidine for prevention of ventilatorassociated pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:595-02. [crossref] [PubMed]
Schaeffer RL, Mendenhall W III, Ott RL, Gerow KG. Elementary Survey Sampling, Fourth Edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California 1990.
Gadani H, Vyas A, Kar AK. A study of ventilator-associated pneumonia: Incidence, outcome, risk factors and measures to be taken for prevention. Indian J Anaesth. 2010;54(6):535-40. [crossref] [PubMed]
Koulenti D, Lisboa T, Brun-Buisson C, Krueger W, Macor A, Sole-Violan J, et al. Spectrum of practice in the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in European intensive care units. Crit Care Med.2009;37(8):2360-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Pugin J. Clinical signs and scores for the diagnosis of ventilator-assoiciated pneumonia. Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68:261-65.
Scannapieco FA. Pneumonia in nonambulatory patients-The role of oral bacteria and oral hygiene. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:21S-25S. [crossref] [PubMed]
Cook DJ, KollefMH. Risk factors for ICU-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 1998;279(20):1605-06. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bergmans DCJJ, Bonten MJM, Gaillard CA, Paling JC, van der Geest S, van Tiel FH, et al. Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia by Oral Decontamination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:382-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
Chan EY, Ruest A, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Oral decontamination for prevention of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adults: Systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ. 2007;334(7599):889. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58684.17095

Date of Submission: Jun 25, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jul 27, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Aug 22, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 27, 2022
• Manual Googling: Aug 17, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 20, 2022 (25%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)