Effects of diets containing synbiotics on the gut microbiota of critically ill septic patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Signa Vitae Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.22514/sv.2023.080
{"title":"Effects of diets containing synbiotics on the gut microbiota of critically ill septic patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial","authors":"","doi":"10.22514/sv.2023.080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effects of synbiotics on gut microbiota have not been thoroughly clarified in critically ill patients with sepsis. In this present study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of synbiotics in a commercial diet on the gut microbiota of mechanically ventilated septic patients. This double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on septic patients under mechanical ventilation in a university-affiliated hospital in southern Thailand from February 2019 to March 2021. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups stratified by sepsis stages and given commercial enteral feeding with synbiotics or standard commercial feeding for 7 days. The primary outcome was fecal microbial diversity measured as alpha and beta diversity. The secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, nosocomial diarrhea, ventilator days, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Twenty-four patients, 12 on a synbiotic diet and 12 on a non-synbiotic diet, completed this study. On day 3 of feeding, no significant difference was observed in their alpha fecal microbial diversity. However, significantly greater beta diversity was observed in the non-synbiotics group compared with the synbiotic group (Bray Curtis distance, p = 0.001; Jaccard’s distance, p = 0.001; unweighted UniFrac, p = 0.001; weighted UniFrac, p = 0.029). The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. In critically ill septic patients, feeding with a commercial diet containing synbiotics did not significantly improve fecal microbial diversity. Due to the small sample size, further study is required.","PeriodicalId":49522,"journal":{"name":"Signa Vitae","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Signa Vitae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effects of synbiotics on gut microbiota have not been thoroughly clarified in critically ill patients with sepsis. In this present study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of synbiotics in a commercial diet on the gut microbiota of mechanically ventilated septic patients. This double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on septic patients under mechanical ventilation in a university-affiliated hospital in southern Thailand from February 2019 to March 2021. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups stratified by sepsis stages and given commercial enteral feeding with synbiotics or standard commercial feeding for 7 days. The primary outcome was fecal microbial diversity measured as alpha and beta diversity. The secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, nosocomial diarrhea, ventilator days, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Twenty-four patients, 12 on a synbiotic diet and 12 on a non-synbiotic diet, completed this study. On day 3 of feeding, no significant difference was observed in their alpha fecal microbial diversity. However, significantly greater beta diversity was observed in the non-synbiotics group compared with the synbiotic group (Bray Curtis distance, p = 0.001; Jaccard’s distance, p = 0.001; unweighted UniFrac, p = 0.001; weighted UniFrac, p = 0.029). The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. In critically ill septic patients, feeding with a commercial diet containing synbiotics did not significantly improve fecal microbial diversity. Due to the small sample size, further study is required.
含合生菌的饮食对重症脓毒症患者肠道微生物群的影响:一项随机对照试验
合生剂对脓毒症危重患者肠道菌群的影响尚未完全明确。在本研究中,我们旨在评估商业饮食中合生剂对机械通气脓毒症患者肠道微生物群的影响。这项双盲、随机对照临床试验于2019年2月至2021年3月在泰国南部一家大学附属医院对机械通气的脓毒症患者进行了研究。按脓毒症分期随机分为2组,分别给予商业肠内喂养或标准商业喂养,为期7 d。主要终点是粪便微生物多样性,测量为α和β多样性。次要结局包括呼吸机相关性肺炎、院内腹泻、呼吸机天数、住院时间和死亡率。24名患者完成了这项研究,其中12名采用合成饮食,12名采用非合成饮食。饲喂第3天时,各组α粪便微生物多样性无显著差异。然而,与合成组相比,非合成组的β多样性显著增加(Bray Curtis距离,p = 0.001; Jaccard距离,p = 0.001;未加权UniFrac, p = 0.001;加权UniFrac, p = 0.029)。两组间的次要结局无显著差异。在重症脓毒症患者中,用含有合成菌的商业饮食喂养并没有显著改善粪便微生物的多样性。由于样本量小,需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Signa Vitae
Signa Vitae 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Signa Vitae is a completely open-access,peer-reviewed journal dedicate to deliver the leading edge research in anaesthesia, intensive care and emergency medicine to publics. The journal’s intention is to be practice-oriented, so we focus on the clinical practice and fundamental understanding of adult, pediatric and neonatal intensive care, as well as anesthesia and emergency medicine. Although Signa Vitae is primarily a clinical journal, we welcome submissions of basic science papers if the authors can demonstrate their clinical relevance. The Signa Vitae journal encourages scientists and academicians all around the world to share their original writings in the form of original research, review, mini-review, systematic review, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, commentary, rapid report, news and views, as well as meeting report. Full texts of all published articles, can be downloaded for free from our web site.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信