4.7 Article

Survival benefit in critically ill burned patients receiving selective decontamination of the digestive tract -: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGERY
Volume 241, Issue 3, Pages 424-430

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000154148.58154.d5

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate whether selective digestive decontamination (SDD) reduces mortality from any cause, and the incidence of pneumonia among patients with severe burns. Summary Background Data: SDD is a prophylactic strategy to reduce infectious morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Two meta-analyses and a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a mortality reduction varying between 20% and 40%. But this technique has never been properly evaluated in severely burned patients. Methods: The design of this single-center trial was randomized, double blind, placebo controlled. Patients with burns greater than or equal to20% of total body surface and/or suspected inhalation injury were enrolled and assigned to receive SDD or placebo for the total duration of treatment in the burn intensive care unit (ICU). Results: One hundred seventeen patients were randomized and 107 were analyzed (53 in the SDD group and 54 in the placebo group). The ICU mortality was 27.8% in the placebo group and 9.4% in the SDD group in the burn ICU. Treatment with SDD was associated with a significant reduction in mortality both in the burn ICU (risk ratio 0.25; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76) and in the hospital (risk ratio 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.80), following adjustment for predicted mortality. The incidence of pneumonia was significantly higher in the placebo group: 30.8 and 17.0 pneumonias per 1000 ventilation days (P = 0.03) in placebo and SDD group, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment with SDD reduces mortality and pneumonia incidence in patients with severe burns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available