Dataset Information

Initial use of supplementary oxygen for trauma patients: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the evidence for supplementary oxygen for spontaneously breathing trauma patients, and for high (0.60-0.90) versus low (0.30-0.50) inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO₂) for intubated trauma patients in the initial phase of treatment.

Methods

Several databases were systematically searched in September 2017 for studies fulfilling the following criteria: trauma patients (Population); supplementary oxygen/high FiO₂ (Intervention) versus no supplementary oxygen/low FiO₂ (Control) for spontaneously breathing or intubated trauma patients, respectively, in the initial phase of treatment; mortality, complications, days on mechanical ventilation and/or length of stay (LOS) in hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) (Outcomes); prospective interventional trials (Study design). Two independent reviewers screened and identified studies and extracted data from included studies.

Results

6142 citations were screened with an inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa) of 0.88. One interventional trial of intubated trauma patients was included. 68 trauma patients were randomised to receive an FiO₂ of 0.80 (intervention group) or 0.50 (control group) during mechanical ventilation (first 6?hours). There was no significant difference in hospital or ICU LOS between the groups. No patient died in either group. Another interventional trial, not strictly fulfilling the inclusion criteria, was presented for descriptive purposes. 21 trauma patients were alternately assigned to two types of mechanical ventilation (first 48?hours), both aiming at an FiO₂ of 0.40, but resulted in estimated mean FiO₂s of 0.45 (intervention group) and 0.60 (control group). No difference in days on mechanical ventilation was found. Two patients in the control group died, none in the intervention group. No prospective, interventional trials on spontaneously breathing trauma patients were identified.

Conclusions

Evidence for the use of supplementary oxygen for spontaneously breathing trauma patients is lacking, and the evidence for low versus high FiO₂ for intubated trauma patients is limited.

Prospero registration number

42016050552.

SUBMITTER: Eskesen TG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6042591 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Initial use of supplementary oxygen for trauma patients: a systematic review.

Eskesen Trine Grodum TG Baekgaard Josefine Stokholm JS Steinmetz Jacob J Rasmussen Lars S LS

BMJ open 20180706 7

<h4>Objective</h4>This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the evidence for supplementary oxygen for spontaneously breathing trauma patients, and for high (0.60-0.90) versus low (0.30-0.50) inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO<sub>2</sub>) for intubated trauma patients in the initial phase of treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Several databases were systematically searched in September 2017 for studies fulfilling the following criteria: trauma patients (<u>P</u>opulation); supplementary oxygen/h ...[more]

PMID: 29982208

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are widely used for measurement of functional outcomes after orthopaedic trauma. However, PROMs rely on patient collaboration and suffer from various types of bias. Wearable Activity Monitors (WAMs) are increasingly used to objectify functional assessment. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and characterise the WAMs technology and metrics currently used for orthopaedic trauma research.MethodsPubMed and Embase biomedical literature search engines were queried. Eligibility criteria included: Human clinical studies published in the English language between 2010 and 2019 involving fracture management and WAMs. Variables collected from each article included: Technology used, vendor/product, WAM body location, metrics measured, measurement time period, year of publication, study geographic location, phase of treatment studied, fractures studied, number of patients studied, sex and age of the study subjects, and study level of evidence. Six investigators reviewed the resulting papers. Descriptive statistics of variables of interest were used to analyse the data.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-six papers were available for analysis, showing an increasing trend of publications per year. Accelerometry followed by plantar pressure insoles were the most commonly employed technologies. The most common location for WAM placement was insoles, followed by the waist. The most commonly studied fracture type was hip fractures followed by fragility fractures in general, ankle, "lower extremity", and tibial fractures. The rehabilitation phase following surgery was the most commonly studied period. Sleep duration, activity time or step counts were the most commonly reported WAM metrics. A preferred, clinically validated WAM metric was not identified.ConclusionsWAMs have an increasing presence in the orthopaedic trauma literature. The optimal implementation of this technology and its use to understand patients' pre-injury and post-injury functions is currently insufficiently explored and represents an area that will benefit from future study.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO ID:210344.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00629-0.

Project description:Statins, in addition to their lipid-lowering properties, have anti-inflammatory actions. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effect of pre-injury statin use, and statin treatment following injury. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched to January 2012 for randomised and observational studies of statins in trauma patients in general, and in patients who have suffered traumatic brain injury, burns, and fractures. Of 985 identified citations, 7 (4 observational studies and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies (both observational) were concerned with trauma patients in general, two with patients who had suffered traumatic brain injury (one observational, one RCT), two with burns patients (one observational, one RCT), and one with fracture healing (RCT). Two of the RCTs relied on surrogate outcome measures. The observational studies were deemed to be at high risk of confounding, and the RCTs at high risk of bias. Three of the observational studies suggested improvements in a number of clinical outcomes in patients taking statins prior to injury (mortality, infection, and septic shock in burns patients; mortality in trauma patients in general; mortality in brain injured patients) whereas one, also of trauma patients in general, showed no difference in mortality or infection, and an increased risk of multi-organ failure. Two of three RCTs on statin treatment in burns patients and brain injured patients showed improvements in E-selectin levels and cognitive function. The third, of patients with radial fractures, showed no acceleration in fracture union. In conclusion, there is some evidence that pre-injury statin use and post-injury statin treatment may have a beneficial effect in patients who have suffered general trauma, traumatic brain injury, and burns. However, these studies are at high risk of confounding and bias, and should be regarded as 'hypothesisgenerating'. A well-designed RCT is required to determine the therapeutic efficacy in improving outcomes in this patient population.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).MethodsWe searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.ResultsAmong 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.ConclusionsFew indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Dataset Information

Initial use of supplementary oxygen for trauma patients: a systematic review.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Prospero registration number

Publications

Initial use of supplementary oxygen for trauma patients: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets