Morten Hedetoft1,2,3, Michael H Bennett2, Ole Hyldegaard1. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Anaesthesia and Hyperbaric Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. Corresponding author: Dr Morten Hedetoft, Department of Anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 8, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, morten.friis.fiskbaek.hedetoft@regionh.dk.
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. Copyright: This article is the copyright of the authors who grant Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine a non-exclusive licence to publish the article in electronic and other forms.
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. Copyright: This article is the copyright of the authors who grant Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine a non-exclusive licence to publish the article in electronic and other forms.
Authors: Chai R Soh; Ricardo Pietrobon; John J Freiberger; Sophia T Chew; Dimple Rajgor; Mihir Gandhi; Jatin Shah; Richard E Moon Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: B Ratzenhofer-Komenda; A Offner; P Ofner; H Klemen; G Prause; F M Smolle-Jüttner; W Toller Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: M Peetermans; N de Prost; C Eckmann; A Norrby-Teglund; S Skrede; J J De Waele Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: C J Lerche; L J Christophersen; M Kolpen; P R Nielsen; H Trøstrup; K Thomsen; O Hyldegaard; H Bundgaard; P Ø Jensen; N Høiby; C Moser Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Susanne Kopp; Wiebke K Peitsch; Assen Mladenov; Katharina Diehl; Oliver Müller; Christian von Heymann Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 8.165