OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to use updated data and Bayesian methods to evaluate the effectiveness of hyperoxia to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) and/or mortality in both colorectal and all surgery patients. Because few trials assessed potential harms of hyperoxia, hazards were not included. BACKGROUND: Use of hyperoxia to reduce SSIs is controversial. Three recent meta-analyses have had conflicting conclusions. METHODS: A systematic literature search and review were performed. Traditional fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses and Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to evaluate SSIs and mortality. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis yielded a relative risk of an SSI with hyperoxia among all surgery patients of 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.97] and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.16) for the fixed-effect and random-effect models, respectively. The probabilities of any risk reduction in SSIs among all surgery patients were 77%, 81%, and 83% for skeptical, neutral, and enthusiastic priors. The subset analysis of colorectal surgery patients increased the probabilities to 86%, 89%, and 92%. The probabilities of at least a 10% reduction were 57%, 62%, and 68% for all surgery patients and 71%, 75%, and 80% among the colorectal surgery subset. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderately high probability of a benefit to hyperoxia in reducing SSIs in colorectal surgery patients; however, the magnitude of benefit is relatively small and might not exceed treatment hazards. Further studies should focus on generalizability to other patient populations or on treatment hazards and other outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to use updated data and Bayesian methods to evaluate the effectiveness of hyperoxia to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) and/or mortality in both colorectal and all surgery patients. Because few trials assessed potential harms of hyperoxia, hazards were not included. BACKGROUND: Use of hyperoxia to reduce SSIs is controversial. Three recent meta-analyses have had conflicting conclusions. METHODS: A systematic literature search and review were performed. Traditional fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses and Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to evaluate SSIs and mortality. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis yielded a relative risk of an SSI with hyperoxia among all surgery patients of 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.97] and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.16) for the fixed-effect and random-effect models, respectively. The probabilities of any risk reduction in SSIs among all surgery patients were 77%, 81%, and 83% for skeptical, neutral, and enthusiastic priors. The subset analysis of colorectal surgery patients increased the probabilities to 86%, 89%, and 92%. The probabilities of at least a 10% reduction were 57%, 62%, and 68% for all surgery patients and 71%, 75%, and 80% among the colorectal surgery subset. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderately high probability of a benefit to hyperoxia in reducing SSIs in colorectal surgery patients; however, the magnitude of benefit is relatively small and might not exceed treatment hazards. Further studies should focus on generalizability to other patient populations or on treatment hazards and other outcomes.
Authors: Erica A Wehrwein; Rita Basu; Ananda Basu; Timothy B Curry; Robert A Rizza; Michael J Joyner Journal: J Physiol Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Dirk Bassler; Matthias Briel; Victor M Montori; Melanie Lane; Paul Glasziou; Qi Zhou; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt; David N Flynn; Mohamed B Elamin; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Nisrin O Abu Elnour; Julianna F Lampropulos; Amit Sood; Rebecca J Mullan; Patricia J Erwin; Clare R Bankhead; Rafael Perera; Carolina Ruiz Culebro; John J You; Sohail M Mulla; Jagdeep Kaur; Kara A Nerenberg; Holger Schünemann; Deborah J Cook; Kristina Lutz; Christine M Ribic; Noah Vale; German Malaga; Elie A Akl; Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gerard Urrutia; Regina Kunz; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann; Heike Raatz; Suzana Alves da Silva; Fabio Tuche; Brigitte Strahm; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Neill K J Adhikari; Edward J Mills; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Haresh Kirpalani; Heloisa P Soares; Paul J Karanicolas; Karen E A Burns; Per Olav Vandvik; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Pedro Paulo M Chrispim; Tim Ramsay Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D B Allen; J J Maguire; M Mahdavian; C Wicke; L Marcocci; H Scheuenstuhl; M Chang; A X Le; H W Hopf; T K Hunt Journal: Arch Surg Date: 1997-09
Authors: J Hope Kilgannon; Alan E Jones; Joseph E Parrillo; R Phillip Dellinger; Barry Milcarek; Krystal Hunter; Nathan I Shapiro; Stephen Trzeciak Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christian S Meyhoff; Jørn Wetterslev; Lars N Jorgensen; Steen W Henneberg; Claus Høgdall; Lene Lundvall; Poul-Erik Svendsen; Hannah Mollerup; Troels H Lunn; Inger Simonsen; Kristian R Martinsen; Therese Pulawska; Lars Bundgaard; Lasse Bugge; Egon G Hansen; Claus Riber; Peter Gocht-Jensen; Line R Walker; Asger Bendtsen; Gun Johansson; Nina Skovgaard; Kim Heltø; Andrei Poukinski; André Korshin; Aqil Walli; Mustafa Bulut; Palle S Carlsson; Svein A Rodt; Liselotte B Lundbech; Henrik Rask; Niels Buch; Sharafaden K Perdawid; Joan Reza; Kirsten V Jensen; Charlotte G Carlsen; Frank S Jensen; Lars S Rasmussen Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jørn Wetterslev; Christian S Meyhoff; Lars N Jørgensen; Christian Gluud; Jane Lindschou; Lars S Rasmussen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Dorien Kiers; Jelle Gerretsen; Emmy Janssen; Aaron John; R Groeneveld; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Gert-Jan Scheffer; Peter Pickkers; Matthijs Kox Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 4.379