BACKGROUND: The utility of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) has not been proved. Previous studies have been subject to substantial selection bias because HBOT is not available universally at all medical centers, and there is often considerable delay associated with its initiation. We examined the utility of HBOT for the treatment of NSTI in the modern era by isolating centers that have their own HBOT facilities. METHODS: We queried all centers in the University Health Consortium (UHC) database from 2008 to 2010 that have their own HBOT facilities (n=14). Cases of NSTI were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, which included Fournier gangrene (608.83), necrotizing fasciitis (728.86), and gas gangrene (040.0). Status of HBOT was identified by the presence (HBOT) or absence (control) of ICD-9 procedure code 93.95. Our cohort was risk-stratified and matched by UHC's validated severity of illness (SOI) score. Comparisons were then made using univariate tests of association and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 1,583 NSTI cases at the 14 HBOT-capable centers. 117 (7%) cases were treated with HBOT. Univariate analysis showed that there was no difference between HBOT and control groups in hospital length of stay, direct cost, complications, and mortality across the three less severe SOI classes (minor, moderate, and major). However, for extreme SOI the HBOT group had fewer complications (45% vs. 66%; p<0.01) and fewer deaths (4% vs. 23%; p<0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that patients who did not receive HBOT were less likely to survive their index hospitalization (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% CI 5.2-25.1). CONCLUSION: At HBOT-capable centers, receiving HBOT was associated with a significant survival benefit. Use of HBOT in conjunction with current practices for the treatment of NSTI can be both a cost-effective and life-saving therapy, in particular for the sickest patients.
BACKGROUND: The utility of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) has not been proved. Previous studies have been subject to substantial selection bias because HBOT is not available universally at all medical centers, and there is often considerable delay associated with its initiation. We examined the utility of HBOT for the treatment of NSTI in the modern era by isolating centers that have their own HBOT facilities. METHODS: We queried all centers in the University Health Consortium (UHC) database from 2008 to 2010 that have their own HBOT facilities (n=14). Cases of NSTI were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, which included Fournier gangrene (608.83), necrotizing fasciitis (728.86), and gas gangrene (040.0). Status of HBOT was identified by the presence (HBOT) or absence (control) of ICD-9 procedure code 93.95. Our cohort was risk-stratified and matched by UHC's validated severity of illness (SOI) score. Comparisons were then made using univariate tests of association and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 1,583 NSTI cases at the 14 HBOT-capable centers. 117 (7%) cases were treated with HBOT. Univariate analysis showed that there was no difference between HBOT and control groups in hospital length of stay, direct cost, complications, and mortality across the three less severe SOI classes (minor, moderate, and major). However, for extreme SOI the HBOT group had fewer complications (45% vs. 66%; p<0.01) and fewer deaths (4% vs. 23%; p<0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that patients who did not receive HBOT were less likely to survive their index hospitalization (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% CI 5.2-25.1). CONCLUSION: At HBOT-capable centers, receiving HBOT was associated with a significant survival benefit. Use of HBOT in conjunction with current practices for the treatment of NSTI can be both a cost-effective and life-saving therapy, in particular for the sickest patients.
Authors: Adrian T Billeter; Hiram C Polk; Samuel F Hohmann; Motaz Qadan; Donald E Fry; Jeffrey R Jorden; Michael H McCafferty; Susan Galandiuk Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: H E Mächler; A Lueger; P Rehak; J Berger; W Veith; C Kühbacher; C Koidl; G Stark; H Metzler Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Christine S Cocanour; Phillip Chang; Jared M Huston; Charles A Adams; Jose J Diaz; Charles B Wessel; Bonnie A Falcione; Graciela M Bauza; Raquel A Forsythe; Matthew R Rosengart Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Kamran Mahmood; Bryan D Kraft; Kristen Glisinski; Matthew G Hartwig; Nicole P Harlan; Claude A Piantadosi; Scott L Shofer Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Raelina S Howell; Theresa Criscitelli; Jon S Woods; Brian M Gillette; Harold Brem; Scott Gorenstein Journal: AORN J Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 0.676
Authors: Benfang Lei; Dylan Minor; Wenchao Feng; Maria Jerome; Mark T Quinn; Mark A Jutila; Mengyao Liu Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.441