INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the efficacy and safety of blood purification in the treatment of patients with deep burns. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and relevant references were systematically searched for RCTs and cohort studies published until the end of September 2020 to investigate the potential of blood purification in improving the prognosis of severely burned patients. The primary outcome of this systematic review was overall patient mortality; secondary outcomes included the incidence of sepsis and infection prevention (vital signs and routine blood tests). RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs and 1 cohort study were included, with a total of 538 burn patients (274 patients who received blood purification and 264 control patients). Compared with patients who received conventional treatment, those treated with blood purification displayed significant 2-day reduction in mortality and sepsis with relative risks of 0.62 and 0.41, respectively (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.74-0.82 and 0.25-0.67, respectively; P < .05). In terms of vital signs and blood biochemistry, the respiratory rates and blood urea nitrogen levels of patients in the blood purification group 3 days post-treatment were significantly higher than those in the control group (randomized standard deviations (SMDs), 0.78 and 0.77, respectively; 95% CIs, 0.33-1.23 and 1.22-0.31, respectively; P < .05). However, there were no significant differences between groups on day 3 with regard to temperature (P = .32), heart rate (P = .26), white blood cell count (P = .54), or neutrophil count (P = .74), potentially owing to the small sample size or the relatively short intervention time. Heterogeneous differences existed between the groups with respect to blood urea nitrogen (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI, -2.16 to -0.40; P < .00001) and Cr (SMD = -3.13; 95% CI, -4.92 to -1.33; P < .00001) on day 7. No systematic adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Blood purification treatment for deep burn patients can significantly reduce the mortality rate and the incidence of complications.
INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the efficacy and safety of blood purification in the treatment of patients with deep burns. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and relevant references were systematically searched for RCTs and cohort studies published until the end of September 2020 to investigate the potential of blood purification in improving the prognosis of severely burned patients. The primary outcome of this systematic review was overall patient mortality; secondary outcomes included the incidence of sepsis and infection prevention (vital signs and routine blood tests). RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs and 1 cohort study were included, with a total of 538 burn patients (274 patients who received blood purification and 264 control patients). Compared with patients who received conventional treatment, those treated with blood purification displayed significant 2-day reduction in mortality and sepsis with relative risks of 0.62 and 0.41, respectively (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.74-0.82 and 0.25-0.67, respectively; P < .05). In terms of vital signs and blood biochemistry, the respiratory rates and blood urea nitrogen levels of patients in the blood purification group 3 days post-treatment were significantly higher than those in the control group (randomized standard deviations (SMDs), 0.78 and 0.77, respectively; 95% CIs, 0.33-1.23 and 1.22-0.31, respectively; P < .05). However, there were no significant differences between groups on day 3 with regard to temperature (P = .32), heart rate (P = .26), white blood cell count (P = .54), or neutrophil count (P = .74), potentially owing to the small sample size or the relatively short intervention time. Heterogeneous differences existed between the groups with respect to blood urea nitrogen (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI, -2.16 to -0.40; P < .00001) and Cr (SMD = -3.13; 95% CI, -4.92 to -1.33; P < .00001) on day 7. No systematic adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Blood purification treatment for deep burn patients can significantly reduce the mortality rate and the incidence of complications.
Authors: Katharina Linden; Ian J Stewart; Stefan F X Kreyer; Vittorio Scaravilli; Jeremy W Cannon; Leopoldo C Cancio; Andriy I Batchinsky; Kevin K Chung Journal: Burns Date: 2014-02-16 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Celeste C Finnerty; Marc G Jeschke; David N Herndon; Richard Gamelli; Nicole Gibran; Matthew Klein; Geoff Silver; Brett Arnoldo; Daniel Remick; Ronald G Tompkins Journal: Mol Med Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: F Liu; Z G Huang; Y Z Peng; J Wu; W F He; Z Q Yuan; J P Zhang; Q Z Luo; H Yan; D Z Peng; Y M Dang; G X Luo Journal: Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi Date: 2016-03
Authors: Emily Rimmer; Brett L Houston; Anand Kumar; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Carol Friesen; John C Marshall; Gail Rock; Alexis F Turgeon; Deborah J Cook; Donald S Houston; Ryan Zarychanski Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Kevin K Chung; Elsa C Coates; David J Smith; Rachel A Karlnoski; William L Hickerson; Angela L Arnold-Ross; Michael J Mosier; Marcia Halerz; Amy M Sprague; Robert F Mullins; Daniel M Caruso; Marlene Albrecht; Brett D Arnoldo; Agnes M Burris; Sandra L Taylor; Steven E Wolf Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Bo You; Yu Long Zhang; Gao Xing Luo; Yong Ming Dang; Bei Jiang; Guang Tao Huang; Xin Zhu Liu; Zi Chen Yang; Yu Chen; Jing Chen; Zhi Qiang Yuan; Su Peng Yin; Yi Zhi Peng Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 9.097