Dataset Information

Effect of parenteral selenium supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is currently unclear whether parenteral selenium supplementation should be recommended in the management of critically ill patients. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of parenteral selenium supplementation on clinical outcomes.

Methods/principal findings

Randomized trials investigating parenteral selenium supplementation administered in addition to standard of care to critically ill patients were included. CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, and CINAHL were searched with complementary manual searches. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Trials published in any language were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. A third author was consulted to resolve disagreements and for quality assurance. Twelve trials were included and meta-analysis was performed on nine trials that recruited critically ill septic patients. These comprised 965 participants in total. Of these, 148 patients (30.7%) in the treatment groups, and 180 patients (37.3%) in control groups died. Parenteral selenium treatment significantly reduced all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the administration schedule employing longer duration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%), loading boluses (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.94, p = 0.01, I(2) = 0%) or high-dose selenium treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p = 0.04, I(2) = 0%) might be associated with a lower mortality risk. There was no evidence of adverse events.

Conclusions/significance

Parenteral selenium supplementation reduces risk of mortality among critically ill patients with sepsis. Owing to the varied methodological quality of the studies, future high-quality randomized trials that directly focus on the effect of adequate-duration of parenteral selenium supplementation for severe septic patients are needed to confirm our results. Clinicians should consider these findings when treating this high-risk population.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 2011; CRD42011001768.

SUBMITTER: Huang TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3555933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGlutamine (GLN) has been suggested to have a beneficial influence on outcomes of critically ill patients. However, recent large-scale trials have suggested harm associated with GLN supplementation. Recently, systematic reviews on the use of parenteral GLN have been published; however, less information is available on the role of enteral GLN. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to study the effects of enteral GLN supplementation in patients with critical illness.MethodsWe identified randomized controlled trials conducted from 1980 to 2014 with enterally administered GLN in adult critically ill patients. Studies of parenteral GLN only or combined enteral-parenteral GLN were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was scored, and trial data were statistically combined. We examined a priori the treatment effects in subgroups of trials of burn and trauma patients.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 1079 adult critically ill patients and enteral GLN supplementation were identified. Enteral GLN supplementation was not associated with a reduction of hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.36; p = 0.74), infectious complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.10; p = 0.39) or stay in the intensive care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.36 days, 95% CI -5.51 to 2.78; p = 0.52). However, there was a significant reduction in hospital stay (WMD 4.73 days, 95% CI -8.53 to -0.90; p = 0.02). In the subset of studies of patients with burns, enteral GLN supplementation was associated with significant reductions in hospital mortality (RR 0.19, 95% 0.06-0.67; p = 0.010) and hospital stay (WMD -9.16, 95% CI -15.06 to -3.26; p = 0.002). There was no effect in trauma patients.ConclusionsEnteral GLN supplementation does not confer significant clinical benefit in critically ill patients, with the exception of reduced hospital stay. There may be a significant benefit in patients with burns, but data are sparse and larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm this effect.

Project description:IntroductionTelemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes.MethodsWe searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I² (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance).ResultsOf 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I2 = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I² = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I² = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I2 = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I2 > 90% for both).ConclusionsTelemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.

Project description:BackgroundLow plasma levels of vitamin C are associated with adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, in critically ill patients. Several trials have suggested that the administration of intravenous vitamin C in this setting may have beneficial effects, such as reducing the incidence of organ failure and improving survival. However, these studies have generally involved combination therapies consisting of vitamin C along with other antioxidants, confounding the effects of vitamin C alone. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of isolated intravenous supplementation of vitamin C in adults with critical illness.MethodsA database search was conducted for studies on the use of intravenous vitamin C in adult patients with critical illness. The primary outcome assessed was mortality at the longest follow-up time available. Secondary outcomes were the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of vasopressor support, fluid requirements, and urine output in the first 24 h of intensive care unit admission.ResultsFive studies (four randomized controlled trials and one retrospective review) enrolling a total of 142 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, the administration of intravenous vitamin C was associated with a decreased need for vasopressor support (standardized mean difference -0.71; 95% confidence interval (-1.16 to -0.26); p = 0.002) and decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference -0.5; 95% confidence interval (-0.93 to -0.06); p = 0.03), but no difference was found in mortality (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (0.27 to 2.16); p = 0.6). Trends were also noted toward decreased fluid requirements and increased urine output. No adverse effects were reported.ConclusionThe administration of intravenous vitamin C may lead to vasopressor sparing effects and a reduced need for mechanical ventilation in the critically ill, without affecting overall mortality. However, these results should be interpreted in light of the limitations of the primary literature and should serve as a preview of upcoming trials in this area.

Project description:PurposeSelenium supplementation is a potentially promising adjunctive therapy for critically ill patients, but the results are controversy among studies. Accordingly, we performed this meta-analysis to more clearly detect the efficacy and safety of selenium supplementation on critically ill patients.MethodsSystematic literature retrieval was carried out to obtain RCTs on selenium supplementation for critically ill patients up to August 2017. Data extraction and quality evaluation of these studies were performed by 2 investigators. Statistical analyses was performed by RevMan 5.3. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to control the risks of type I and type II errors and calculate required information size (RIS).ResultsTotally 19 RCTs involving 3341 critically ill patients were carried out in which 1694 participates were in the selenium supplementation group, and 1647 in the control. The aggregated results suggested that compared with the control, intravenous selenium supplement as a single therapy could decrease the total mortality (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.95, P = .002, TSA-adjusted 95% CI = 0.77-0.96, RIS = 4108, n = 3297) and may shorten the length of stay in hospital (MD -2.30, 95% CI -4.03 to -0.57, P = .009), but had no significant treatment effect on 28-days mortality (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.09, P = .54) and could not shorten the length of ICU stay (MD -0.15, 95% CI -1.68 to 1.38, P = .84) in critically ill patients. Our results also showed that selenium supplementation did not increase incidence of drug-induced side effect compared with the control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.30, P = .73).ConclusionsThe current evidence suggests that the use of selenium could reduce the total mortality, and TSA results showed that our outcome is reliable and no more randomized controlled trials are needed. But selenium supplementation might have no effect on reducing 28-days mortality as well as the incidence of new infections, or on length of stay in ICU or mechanical ventilation. However, the results should be used carefully because of potential limitations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients with diabetes are at increased risk for the development of complications, but the impact of diabetes on mortality is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of diabetes on mortality in critically ill patients, making a distinction between different ICU types. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase for studies published from May 2005 to May 2010 that reported the mortality of adult ICU patients. Two reviewers independently screened the resultant 3,220 publications for information regarding ICU, in-hospital or 30-day mortality of patients with or without diabetes. The number of deaths among patients with or without diabetes and/or mortality risk associated with diabetes was extracted. When only crude survival data were provided, odds ratios (ORs) and standard errors were calculated. Data were synthesized using inverse variance with ORs as the effect measure. A random effects model was used because of anticipated heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 141 studies comprising 12,489,574 patients, including 2,705,624 deaths (21.7%). Of these patients, at least 2,327,178 (18.6%) had diabetes. Overall, no association between the presence of diabetes and mortality risk was found. Analysis by ICU type revealed a significant disadvantage for patients with diabetes for all mortality definitions when admitted to the surgical ICU (ICU mortality: OR [95% confidence interval] 1.48 [1.04 to 2.11]; in-hospital mortality: 1.59 [1.28 to 1.97]; 30-day mortality: 1.62 [1.13 to 2.34]). In medical and mixed ICUs, no effect of diabetes on all outcomes was found. Sensitivity analysis showed that the disadvantage in the diabetic surgical population was attributable to cardiac surgery patients (1.77 [1.45 to 2.16], P < 0.00001) and not to general surgery patients (1.21 [0.96 to 1.53], P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that diabetes is not associated with increased mortality risk in any ICU population except cardiac surgery patients.

Project description:BackgroundParenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.Results1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care.ConclusionOverall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact. Trial registration PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021259238).