Dataset Information

Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen treatment for necrotising soft-tissue infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Surgical intervention, broad-spectrum antibiotics and intensive care support are the standard of care in the treatment of necrotising soft-tissue infections (NSTI). Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) may be a useful adjunctive treatment and has been used for almost 60 years, but its efficacy remains unknown and has not been systematically appraised. The aim was to systematically review and synthesise the highest level of clinical evidence available to support or refute the use of HBOT in the treatment of NSTI.

Methods

The review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020148706). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched for eligible studies that reported outcomes in both HBOT treated and non-HBOT treated individuals with NSTI. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Odds ratio (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models.

Results

The search identified 486 papers of which 31 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 21 in the meta-analyses. Meta-analysis on 48,744 patients with NSTI (1,237 (2.5%) HBOT versus 47,507 (97.5%) non-HBOT) showed in-hospital mortality was 4,770 of 48,744 patients overall (9.8%) and the pooled OR was 0.44 (95% CI 0.33-0.58) in favour of HBOT. For major amputation the pooled OR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.28-1.28) in favour of HBOT. The dose of oxygen in these studies was incompletely reported.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis of the non-random comparative data indicates patients with NSTI treated with HBOT have reduced odds of dying during the sentinel event and may be less likely to require a major amputation. The most effective dose of oxygen remains unclear.

SUBMITTER: Hedetoft M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8081587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTraumatic crush injuries of the lower limb often accompany severe complications. The incorporation of hyperbaric oxygen therapy to standard trauma care may have the potential to diminish injury-related complications and improve outcome in such cases. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the management of severe lower limb soft tissue injuries.MethodsThe electronic databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies involving patients with crush-associated sever lower limb soft tissue injuries who received hyperbaric oxygen therapy in conjunction with standard trauma care. Relevant data on type of injury, hyperbaric oxygen therapy protocol and outcome related to wound healing were extracted.ResultsIn total seven studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 229 patients. The studies included two randomized clinical trials, one retrospective cohort study, three case series and one case report. The randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial showed a significant increase in wound healing and decrease in the need for additional surgical interventions in the patient group receiving hyperbaric oxygen therapy when compared to those undergoing sham therapy. The randomized non-placebo-controlled clinical trial revealed that early hyperbaric oxygen therapy reduces tissue necrosis and the likelihood of long-term complications. The retrospective cohort study indicated that hyperbaric oxygen therapy effectively reduces infection rates and the need for additional surgical interventions. The case series and case report presented beneficial results with regard to wound healing when hyperbaric oxygen therapy was added to the treatment regimen.ConclusionHyperbaric oxygen therapy is generally considered a safe therapeutic intervention and seems to have a beneficial effect on wound healing in severe lower limb soft tissue injuries when implemented as an addition to standard trauma care.

Project description:To determine the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI), we conducted a meta-analysis of the available evidence. Data sources were PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists. The study included observational trials that compared HBO with non-HBO, or standard care. The primary outcome was the mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the number of debridement, amputation rate and complication rate. Relative risks or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. A total of retrospective cohort and case-control studies were included, including 49,152 patients, 1448 who received HBO and 47,704 in control. The mortality rate in the HBO group was significantly lower than that in the non-HBO group [RR = 0.522, 95% CI (0.403, 0.677), p < 0.05]. However, the number of debridements performed in the HBO group was higher than in the non-HBO group [SMD = 0.611, 95% CI (0.012, 1.211), p < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in amputation rates between the two groups [RR = 0.836, 95% CI (0.619, 1.129), p > 0.05]. In terms of complications, the incidence of MODS was lower in the HBO group than in the non-HBO group [RR = 0.205, 95% CI (0.164, 0.256), p < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of other complications, such as sepsis, shock, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonia, between the two groups (p > 0.05). The current evidence suggests that the use of HBO in the treatment of NSTI can significantly reduce the mortality rates and the incidence rates of complications. However, due to the retrospective nature of the studies, the evidence is weak, and further research is needed to establish its efficacy. It is also important to note that HBO is not available in all hospitals, and its use should be carefully considered based on the patient's individual circumstances. Additionally, it is still worthwhile to stress the significance of promptly evaluating surgical risks to prevent missing the optimal treatment time.

Project description:BackgroundThe pathophysiological understanding of the inflammatory response in necrotizing soft-tissue infection (NSTI) and its impact on clinical progression and outcomes are not resolved. Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2 ) treatment serves as an adjunctive treatment; however, its immunomodulatory effects in the treatment of NSTI remains unknown. Accordingly, we evaluated fluctuations in inflammatory markers during courses of HBO2 treatment and assessed the overall inflammatory response during the first 3 days after admission.MethodsIn 242 patients with NSTI, we measured plasma TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) upon admission and daily for three days, and before/after HBO2 in the 209 patients recieving HBO2 . We assessed the severity of disease by Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, SOFA score, and blood lactate.ResultsIn paired analyses, HBO2 treatment was associated with a decrease in IL-6 in patients with Group A-Streptococcus NSTI (first HBO2 treatment, median difference -29.5 pg/ml; second HBO2 treatment, median difference -7.6 pg/ml), and overall a decrease in G-CSF (first HBO2 treatment, median difference -22.5 pg/ml; 2- HBO2 treatment, median difference -20.4 pg/ml). Patients presenting with shock had significantly higher baseline cytokines values compared to non-shock patients (TNF-α: 51.9 vs. 23.6, IL-1β: 1.39 vs 0.61, IL-6: 542.9 vs. 57.5, IL-10: 21.7 vs. 3.3 and G-CSF: 246.3 vs. 11.8 pg/ml; all p < 0.001). Longitudinal analyses demonstrated higher concentrations in septic shock patients and those receiving renal-replacement therapy. All cytokines were significantly correlated to SAPS II, SOFA score, and blood lactate. In adjusted analysis, high baseline G-CSF was associated with 30-day mortality (OR 2.83, 95% CI: 1.01-8.00, p = 0.047).ConclusionIn patients with NSTI, HBO2 treatment may induce immunomodulatory effects by decreasing plasma G-CSF and IL-6. High levels of inflammatory markers were associated with disease severity, whereas high baseline G-CSF was associated with increased 30-day mortality.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) carry significant economic burden, as well as morbidity and mortality, especially when caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Several new MRSA-active antibiotics have been developed, including semisynthetic glycopeptides (telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin). Of these, dalbavancin and oritavancin offer extended dosing intervals. METHODS:We performed a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost analysis to compare the newer glycopeptides to standard care and to each other for the treatment of complicated SSTIs (cSSTI). A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also developed a model to evaluate the costs associated with dalbavancin and oritavancin from the third-party payer perspective. RESULTS:Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analyses suggested that the clinical response to telavancin, dalbavancin and oritavancin was similar to standard care (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.33; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.18; and OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85-1.33, respectively). Head-to-head comparisons showed no difference in clinical response between oritavancin and dalbavancin (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.85-2.18), oritavancin and telavancin (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.72-1.31) or dalbavancin and telavancin (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.13). Telavancin had a higher incidence of overall adverse events compared to standard care (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.10-1.61). Compared to telavancin, there were fewer overall adverse events with dalbavancin (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.76) and oritavancin (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.92). Studies were of high quality overall. Our cost analyses demonstrated that dalbavancin and oritavancin were less costly compared to standard care under baseline assumptions and many scenarios evaluated. The use of dalbavancin could save third-party payers $1442 to $4803 per cSSTI, while the use of oritavancin could save $3571 to $6932 per cSSTI. CONCLUSIONS:Dalbavancin and oritavancin demonstrate efficacy and safety comparable to standard care in well-designed RCTs and result in cost savings when standard care is treatment that covers MRSA.