TY - JOUR
T1 - Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients
T2 - A systematic review with meta-analysis
AU - Tsuchiya, Emma Atsuko
AU - Jensen-Abbew, Jacob
AU - Krag, Mette
AU - Møller, Morten Hylander
AU - Vestergaard, Martin Risom
AU - Haase, Nicolai
AU - Helleberg, Marie
AU - Holmgaard, Rikke
AU - Heiberg, Johan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background: In mechanically ventilated adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been shown to reduce the risk of infections and improve survival. While the benefits of SDD have been documented in this population, it remains unclear whether burn patients, who are at increased risk of infection and have distinct clinical characteristics, may experience similar benefits. In this systematic review we aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable patient-important effects of administering SDD to burn patients. Methods/design: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of SDD versus placebo or no SDD in burn patients. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, antimicrobial resistance, pneumonia, blood stream infections, ICU- and hospital-free days, and 90-day mortality. We searched all major databases and followed the recommendations provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: We identified four RCTs with a total of 457 burn patients. All trials were assessed as having either ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’ of bias. The evidence was found to be very uncertain across all outcomes assessed. For mortality, the relative risk (RR) was 0.62 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22–1.78, I2 = 75 %, random-effects model (REM), very low certainty evidence). For pneumonia, the RR was 0.75 (95 % CI 0.48–1.19, I2 = 0 %, fixed-effect model, very low certainty evidence). For bloodstream infections, the RR was 1.10 (95 % CI 0.71–1.69, I2 = 0 %, REM, very low certainty evidence). For hospital length of stay, the mean difference was −2.03 days (95 % CI −9.64–5.59, I2 = 51 %, REM, very low certainty evidence). We did not perform meta-analyses for the remaining secondary outcomes due to limited or no data. Trial sequential analysis could not be performed due to insufficient number of total participants and events in the included trials. Conclusion: We found that the certainty of evidence is very low about the effects of SDD on patient-important outcomes in burn patients. Extrapolating from the evidence on mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients may be reasonable until more data from RCTs in burn patients emerge.
AB - Background: In mechanically ventilated adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been shown to reduce the risk of infections and improve survival. While the benefits of SDD have been documented in this population, it remains unclear whether burn patients, who are at increased risk of infection and have distinct clinical characteristics, may experience similar benefits. In this systematic review we aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable patient-important effects of administering SDD to burn patients. Methods/design: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of SDD versus placebo or no SDD in burn patients. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, antimicrobial resistance, pneumonia, blood stream infections, ICU- and hospital-free days, and 90-day mortality. We searched all major databases and followed the recommendations provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: We identified four RCTs with a total of 457 burn patients. All trials were assessed as having either ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’ of bias. The evidence was found to be very uncertain across all outcomes assessed. For mortality, the relative risk (RR) was 0.62 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22–1.78, I2 = 75 %, random-effects model (REM), very low certainty evidence). For pneumonia, the RR was 0.75 (95 % CI 0.48–1.19, I2 = 0 %, fixed-effect model, very low certainty evidence). For bloodstream infections, the RR was 1.10 (95 % CI 0.71–1.69, I2 = 0 %, REM, very low certainty evidence). For hospital length of stay, the mean difference was −2.03 days (95 % CI −9.64–5.59, I2 = 51 %, REM, very low certainty evidence). We did not perform meta-analyses for the remaining secondary outcomes due to limited or no data. Trial sequential analysis could not be performed due to insufficient number of total participants and events in the included trials. Conclusion: We found that the certainty of evidence is very low about the effects of SDD on patient-important outcomes in burn patients. Extrapolating from the evidence on mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients may be reasonable until more data from RCTs in burn patients emerge.
KW - antibiotic prophylaxis
KW - bacteremia
KW - burns
KW - gastrointestinal tract
KW - infections
KW - pneumonia
U2 - 10.1016/j.burns.2025.107501
DO - 10.1016/j.burns.2025.107501
M3 - Review
C2 - 40250196
AN - SCOPUS:105002698085
SN - 0305-4179
VL - 51
JO - Burns
JF - Burns
IS - 5
M1 - 107501
ER -