Dataset Information

Probiotics for Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background and Objective: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is still an important cause of morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. The efficacy of the probiotics for preventing VAP is still controversial. Present study was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the effect of probiotics on VAP prevention in mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to September 2016. Eligible trials designed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics with control in mechanically ventilated patients were included. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with fixed or random effects models. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed using TSA 0.9beta software. Results: Thirteen RCTs (N = 1969) were included. Overall, probiotics were associated with reduced incidence of VAP (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002), which was confirmed by TSA (TSA adjusted 95% CI = 0.55-0.96). However, no significant difference was observed in 90-day mortality (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.72-1.37; P = 0.99), overall mortality (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.70-1.02; P = 0.09), 28-day mortality (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.72-1.57; P = 0.99), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.74-1.27; P = 0.82), hospital mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65-1.02; P = 0.07), diarrhea (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.83-1.19; P = 0.92), length of ICU stay (MD = -2.40 days, 95% CI = -6.75 to 1.95; P = 0.28), length of hospital stay (MD = -1.34 days, 95% CI = -6.21 to 3.54; P = 0.59), and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -3.32 days, 95% CI = -6.74 to 0.09; P = 0.06). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, we found that probiotics could reduce the incidence of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients. It seems likely that probiotics provide clinical benefits for mechanically ventilated patients.

SUBMITTER: Weng H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640711 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Probiotics for Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Weng Hong H Li Jian-Guo JG Mao Zhi Z Feng Ying Y Wang Chao-Yang CY Ren Xue-Qun XQ Zeng Xian-Tao XT

Frontiers in pharmacology 20171009

<b>Background and Objective:</b> Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is still an important cause of morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. The efficacy of the probiotics for preventing VAP is still controversial. Present study was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the effect of probiotics on VAP prevention in mechanically ventilated patients. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to September 2016. Eligible trials designed with randomized contro ...[more]

PMID: 29062279

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common healthcare-associated infection (HAI) in patients with mechanical ventilation. VAP is largely preventable, and a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) has effectively reduced HAI. In this study, we aim to comprehensively investigate the effect of implementing the CUSP in patients requiring mechanical ventilation.MethodsIn this uncontrolled before-and-after trial conducted in two intensive care unit (ICU) settings in China, patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups based on the implementation of CUSP. The primary outcome was the incidence of VAP. The secondary outcomes were the time from intubation to VAP, days of antibiotic use for VAP treatments, rate of other infection, length of stay (LOS) in ICU, hospital LOS, and safety culture score. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to test the changes in trends of VAP rate for statistical significance. Propensity score matching (1:1 matching) was used to reduce the potential bias between CUSP and no CUSP groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic/linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between the use of CUSP and clinical outcomes. This study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn), registration number: ChiCTR1900025391.ResultsA total of 1,004 patients from the transplant ICU (TICU) and 1,001 patients from the surgical ICU (SICU) were enrolled in the study from January 2016 to March 2022. Before propensity score matching, the incidences of VAP decreased from 35.1/1,000 ventilator days in the no CUSP group to 12.3/1,000 ventilator days in the CUSP group in the TICU setting (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.59). The results of the joinpoint regression analysis confirmed that the implementation of CUSP significantly decreased the incidences of VAP. After propensity score matching in TICU setting, the CUSP group reported a lower incidence of VAP (30.4 vs. 9.7‰, P = 0.003; adjusted OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.10-0.76), lower wound infection (3.4 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.048; adjusted OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.50-0.95), shorter ICU LOS [3.5(2.3-5.3) vs. 2.5(2.0-4.5) days; P = 0.003, adjusted estimate = -0.34, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.14], and higher safety culture score (149.40 ± 11.74 vs. 153.37 ± 9.74; P = 0.002). Similar results were also observed in the SICU setting between the no CUSP and CUSP group.ConclusionsThe implementation of CSUP for patients receiving mechanical ventilation could significantly reduce the incidences of VAP, and other infections, prolong the time until the VAP occurrence, reduces the days of antibiotic use for VAP, shorten the ICU and hospital LOS, and enhance the awareness of safety culture.

Project description:IntroductionNosocomial pneumonia is the most important infectious complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Kinetic bed therapy may reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. The objective of this study was to investigate whether kinetic bed therapy reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and improves outcomes in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and AMED for studies, as well as reviewed abstracts of conference proceedings, bibliographies of included studies and review articles and contacted the manufacturers of medical beds. Studies included were randomized or pseudo-randomized clinical trials of kinetic bed therapy compared to standard manual turning in critically ill mechanically ventilated adult patients. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria and extracted data regarding study validity, type of bed used, intensity of kinetic therapy, and population under investigation. Outcomes assessed included the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, duration of ventilation, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.ResultsFifteen prospective clinical trials were identified, which included a total of 1,169 participants. No trial met all the validity criteria. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.53), but no reduction in mortality (pooled OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.66 to 1.14), duration of mechanical ventilation (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14 days, 95%CI, -0.29 to 0.02), duration of intensive care unit stay (pooled SMD -0.064 days, 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.086) or duration of hospital stay (pooled SMD 0.05 days, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.27).ConclusionWhile kinetic bed therapy has been purported to reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, the overall body of evidence is insufficient to support this conclusion. There appears to be a reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but no effect on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or intensive care or hospital length of stay. Given the lack of consistent benefit and the poor methodological quality of the trials included in this analysis, definitive recommendations regarding the use of this therapy cannot be made at this time.

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:IntroductionSelective digestive decontamination (SDD) appears to have a more compelling evidence base than non-antimicrobial methods for the prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). However, the striking variability in ventilator associated pneumonia-incidence proportion (VAP-IP) among the SDD studies remains unexplained and a postulated contextual effect remains untested for.MethodsNine reviews were used to source 45 observational (benchmark) groups and 137 component (control and intervention) groups of studies of SDD and studies of three non-antimicrobial methods of VAP prevention. The logit VAP-IP data were summarized by meta-analysis using random effects methods and the associated heterogeneity (tau2) was measured. As group level predictors of logit VAP-IP, the mode of VAP diagnosis, proportion of trauma admissions, the proportion receiving prolonged ventilation and the intervention method under study were examined in meta-regression models containing the benchmark groups together with either the control (models 1 to 3) or intervention (models 4 to 6) groups of the prevention studies.ResultsThe VAP-IP benchmark derived here is 22.1% (95% confidence interval; 95% CI; 19.2 to 25.5; tau2 0.34) whereas the mean VAP-IP of control groups from studies of SDD and of non-antimicrobial methods, is 35.7 (29.7 to 41.8; tau2 0.63) versus 20.4 (17.2 to 24.0; tau2 0.41), respectively (P < 0.001). The disparity between the benchmark groups and the control groups of the SDD studies, which was most apparent for the highest quality studies, could not be explained in the meta-regression models after adjusting for various group level factors. The mean VAP-IP (95% CI) of intervention groups is 16.0 (12.6 to 20.3; tau2 0.59) and 17.1 (14.2 to 20.3; tau2 0.35) for SDD studies versus studies of non-antimicrobial methods, respectively.ConclusionsThe VAP-IP among the intervention groups within the SDD evidence base is less variable and more similar to the benchmark than among the control groups. These paradoxical observations cannot readily be explained. The interpretation of the SDD evidence base cannot proceed without further consideration of this contextual effect.

Dataset Information

Probiotics for Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Publications

Probiotics for Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets