Dataset Information

Probiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Enteral administration of probiotics may modify the gastrointestinal environment in a manner that preferentially favors the growth of minimally virulent species. It is unknown whether probiotic modification of the upper aerodigestive flora can reduce nosocomial infections.

Objectives

To determine whether oropharyngeal and gastric administration of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

Methods

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 146 mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of developing VAP. Patients were randomly assigned to receive enteral probiotics (n = 68) or an inert inulin-based placebo (n = 70) twice a day in addition to routine care.

Measurements and main results

Patients treated with Lactobacillus were significantly less likely to develop microbiologically confirmed VAP compared with patients treated with placebo (40.0 vs. 19.1%; P = 0.007). Although patients treated with probiotics had significantly less Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea than patients treated with placebo (18.6 vs. 5.8%; P = 0.02), the duration of diarrhea per episode was not different between groups (13.2 ± 7.4 vs. 9.8 ± 4.9 d; P = 0.39). Patients treated with probiotics had fewer days of antibiotics prescribed for VAP (8.6 ± 10.3 vs. 5.6 ± 7.8 d; P = 0.05) and for C. difficile-associated diarrhea (2.1 ± 4.8 SD d vs. 0.5 ± 2.3 d; P = 0.02). No adverse events related to probiotic administration were identified.

Conclusions

These pilot data suggest that L. rhamnosus GG is safe and efficacious in preventing VAP in a select, high-risk ICU population. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00613795).

SUBMITTER: Morrow LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2970846 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a prevalent and costly nosocomial infection related to instrumentation of the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT), enabling microaspiration of contaminated secretions. Modification of the ETT design to reduce microaspiration and/or biofilm formation may play an important role in VAP prevention. However, there is insufficient evidence to provide strong recommendations regarding the use of modified ETT and unaddressed safety concerns.We performed a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing two modified ETTs designed specifically to prevent VAP, with the standard ETT, to test the feasibility of and inform planning for a large, pivotal, randomized trial.This study was conducted with institutional review board approval under exception from informed consent. We randomized in a blinded fashion patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation both out of and in hospital to receive one of three different ETT types: (1) a polyurethane-cuffed tube (PUC-ETT), (2) a polyurethane-cuffed tube equipped with a port for continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions (PUC-CASS-ETT), or a (3) standard polyvinylchloride-cuffed tube (PVC-ETT). In addition to investigating feasibility and safety, the study coprimary end points were tracheal bacterial colonization reaching a cfu count >10(6) cfu per milliliter and the incidence of invasively diagnosed VAP.A total of 102 subjects were randomized and met the eligibility criteria. Randomization procedures performed well and integrity of blinding at randomization was maintained. The majority of intubations occurred in the hospital setting (n?=?77), and the remainder occurred out of hospital (n?=?25). Compared with the PVC-ETT, there were no significant differences in tracheal colonization for PUC-ETT (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-3.09) or for PUC-CASS-ETT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.42-3.76). There were no differences in the risk of invasively diagnosed VAP (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.21-6.08 for PUC-ETT; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.30-7.10 for PUC-CASS-ETT), or of clinically diagnosed VAP by either clinical signs or chest radiograph criteria. We did not observe unexpected or serious adverse events related to the devices.A randomized trial of ETTs inserted during emergency intubation for the prevention of VAP is feasible and did not appear to carry heightened safety concerns. These preliminary data did not suggest different patterns of tracheal colonization or occurrence of VAP among the study groups. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01744483).

Project description:BackgroundProbiotic might have a role in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among mechanically ventilated patients, but the efficacy and safety remained inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotic (prebiotic, synbiotic) versus placebo in preventing VAP in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.MethodsPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were searched to 10 October 2021 without language restriction for randomized or semi-randomized controlled trials evaluating probiotic (prebiotic, synbiotic) vs. placebo in prevention of VAP in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were combined using a random-effects model. Furthermore, the trial sequential analysis (TSA) and subgroup analyses were performed. Statistical significance was regarded as P < 0.05.ResultsTwenty-three trials involving 5543 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The combined RR of decreasing the risk of VAP by probiotic was 0.67 (0.56, 0.81) for all eligible studies, 0.69 (n = 5136; 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.84; P < 0.01) for adults studies and 0.55 (n = 407; 95%CI = 0.31 to 0.99; P = 0.046) for neonates/children studies. Additionally, the above-mentioned positive finding in 20 adults studies was verified by the results of TSA, subgroup analyses and cumulative meta-analysis. Ample evidences demonstrated a 31% decrease in RR of incidence of VAP was noted when prophylactic probiotic therapy was administrated among adult patients. Finally, there were no effects on the ICU/hospital/28-/90-day mortality, bacteremia, CRBSI, diarrhea, ICU-acquired infections, infectious complications, pneumonia, UTI and wound infection between two groups (P > 0.05 for all).ConclusionsBased on the results of our study, the current evidences suggested that prophylactic administration of probiotic might be utilized as a preventive method for VAP in neonates/children and adults patients who required mechanical ventilation. However, further large, high-quality RCTs are warranted to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotic treatment in critically ill patients, especially for the neonates/children studies and the long-term consequences of this therapy.

Project description:BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the common critical complications of nosocomial infection (NI) in invasive mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The efficacy of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), enteral nutrition and/or adjuvant peripheral parenteral nutrition (EPN) supplemented with or without probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic therapies in preventing VAP among these patients has been questioned. We aimed to systematically and comprehensively summarize all available studies to generate the best evidence of VAP prevention for invasive mechanically ventilated ICU patients.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the administration of TPN, EPN, probiotics-supplemented EPN, prebiotics-supplemented EPN, and synbiotics-supplemented EPN for VAP prevention in invasive mechanically ventilated ICU patients were systematically retrieved from four electronic databases. The incidence of VAP was the primary outcome and was determined by the random-effects model of a Bayesian framework. The secondary outcomes were NI, ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration. The registration number of Prospero is CRD42020195773.ResultsA total of 8339 patients from 31 RCTs were finally included in network meta-analysis. The primary outcome showed that probiotic-supplemented EPN had a higher correlation with the alleviation of VAP than EPN in critically invasive mechanically ventilated patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.75; 95% credible intervals [CrI] 0.58-0.95). Subgroup analyses showed that probiotic-supplemented EPN prevented VAP in trauma patients (OR 0.30; 95% CrI 0.13-0.83), mixed probiotic strain therapy was more effective in preventing VAP than EPN therapy (OR 0.55; 95% CrI 0.31-0.97), and low-dose probiotic therapy (less than 1010 CFU per day) was more associated with lowered incidence of VAP than EPN therapy (OR 0.16; 95% CrI 0.04-0.64). Secondary outcomes indicated that synbiotic-supplemented EPN therapy was more significantly related to decreased incidence of NI than EPN therapy (OR 0.34; 95% CrI 0.11-0.85). Prebiotic-supplemented EPN administration was the most effective in preventing diarrhea (OR 0.05; 95% CrI 0.00-0.71).ConclusionProbiotic supplementation shows promise in reducing the incidence of VAP in critically invasive mechanically ventilated patients. Currently, low quality of evidence reduces strong clinical recommendations. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to conclusively prove these findings.Systamatic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020195773], identifier [CRD42020195773].

Project description:Intestinal bacteria may influence lung homeostasis via the gut-lung axis. We conducted a single-center, quadruple-blinded, randomized trial in adult symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid19) outpatients. Subjects were allocated 1:1 to probiotic formula (strains Lactiplantibacillus plantarum KABP022, KABP023, and KAPB033, plus strain Pediococcus acidilactici KABP021, totaling 2 × 109 colony-forming units (CFU)) or placebo, for 30 days. Co-primary endpoints included: i) proportion of patients in complete symptomatic and viral remission; ii) proportion progressing to moderate or severe disease with hospitalization, or death; and iii) days on Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Three hundred subjects were randomized (median age 37.0 years [range 18 to 60], 161 [53.7%] women, 126 [42.0%] having known metabolic risk factors), and 293 completed the study (97.7%). Complete remission was achieved by 78 of 147 (53.1%) in probiotic group compared to 41 of 146 (28.1%) in placebo (RR: 1.89 [95 CI 1.40-2.55]; P < .001), significant after multiplicity correction. No hospitalizations or deaths occurred during the study, precluding the assessment of remaining co-primary outcomes. Probiotic supplementation was well-tolerated and reduced nasopharyngeal viral load, lung infiltrates and duration of both digestive and non-digestive symptoms, compared to placebo. No significant compositional changes were detected in fecal microbiota between probiotic and placebo, but probiotic supplementation significantly increased specific IgM and IgG against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) compared to placebo. It is thus hypothesized this probiotic primarily acts by interacting with the host's immune system rather than changing colonic microbiota composition. Future studies should replicate these findings and elucidate its mechanism of action (Registration: NCT04517422).Abbreviations: AE: Adverse Event; BMI: Body Mass Index; CONSORT: CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; CFU: Colony-Forming Units; eDRF: Electronic Daily Report Form; GLA: Gut-Lung Axis; GSRS: Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale; hsCRP: High-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein; HR: Hazard Ratio; ICU: Intensive Care Unit; OR: Odds Ratio; PCoA: Principal Coordinate Analysis; RR: Relative Risk; RT-qPCR: Real-Time Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SpO2: Peripheral Oxygen Saturation; WHO: World Health Organization.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare a 7-day course of doripenem to a 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to Gram-negative bacteria.MethodsThis was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial comparing a fixed 7-day course of doripenem one gram as a four-hour infusion every eight hours with a fixed 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin one gram as a one-hour infusion every eight hours (April 2008 through June 2011).ResultsThe study was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee that was blinded to treatment arm assignment and performed a scheduled review of data which showed signals that were close to the pre-specified stopping limits. The final analyses included 274 randomized patients. The clinical cure rate at the end of therapy (EOT) in the microbiological intent-to-treat (MITT) population was numerically lower for patients in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (45.6% versus 56.8%; 95% CI, -26.3% to 3.8%). Similarly, the clinical cure rate at EOT was numerically lower for patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa VAP, the most common Gram-negative pathogen, in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (41.2% versus 60.0%; 95% CI, -57.2 to 19.5). All cause 28-day mortality in the MITT group was numerically greater for patients in the doripenem arm compared to the imipenem-cilastatin arm (21.5% versus 14.8%; 95% CI, -5.0 to 18.5) and for patients with P. aeruginosa VAP (35.3% versus 0.0%; 95% CI, 12.6 to 58.0).ConclusionsAmong patients with microbiologically confirmed late-onset VAP, a fixed 7-day course of doripenem was found to have non-significant higher rates of clinical failure and mortality compared to a fixed 10-day course of imipenem-cilastatin. Consideration should be given to treating patients with VAP for more than seven days to optimize clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00589693.