Prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 6.9 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Annals of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2026-08-04 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.aicoj.2026.100130
Junji Hatakeyama, Ryo Yamamoto, Minoru Yoshida, Kohei Yamada, Kazushige Inoue, Takayuki Irahara, Satomi Ichimaru, Nobuto Nakanishi, Naoki Higashibeppu, Kensuke Nakamura, Joji Kotani
{"title":"Prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Junji Hatakeyama, Ryo Yamamoto, Minoru Yoshida, Kohei Yamada, Kazushige Inoue, Takayuki Irahara, Satomi Ichimaru, Nobuto Nakanishi, Naoki Higashibeppu, Kensuke Nakamura, Joji Kotani","doi":"10.1016/j.aicoj.2026.100130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Critically ill patients frequently develop intestinal dysbiosis, leading to gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and infectious complications. No network meta-analysis (NMA) has compared the relative effectiveness of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics for reducing the risk of GI symptoms in critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate their comparative effects in preventing GI symptoms and improving clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched through June 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials enrolled critically ill adults and compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with controls (placebo or usual care). The primary outcome was GI symptom incidence. Secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, infectious complications, and adverse events. A frequentist random-effects NMA was conducted. Treatment rankings were exploratory, and certainty of evidence was not formally assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three randomized controlled trials involving 5,073 patients were included in the analysis of GI symptoms. Compared with control, synbiotics significantly reduced the risk of GI symptoms (risk ratio [RR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.77), as did prebiotics (RR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.87). Probiotics produced a similar directional effect, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.10). No significant differences were found between the active interventions. Subgroup analyses suggested differences according to the ICU population. Among medical intensive care patients, prebiotics were associated with a lower risk of GI symptoms than control, whereas probiotics and synbiotics were associated with a lower risk among surgical intensive care patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Synbiotics and prebiotics were associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal symptoms in critically ill patients, whereas probiotics showed a similar but statistically nonsignificant effect. No active intervention was significantly superior to another. The findings suggest that the relative benefits of these interventions may differ between medical and surgical intensive care populations. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously because certainty of evidence was not formally assessed.PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251015729; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251015729.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"16 ","pages":"100130"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13499409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aicoj.2026.100130","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Critically ill patients frequently develop intestinal dysbiosis, leading to gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and infectious complications. No network meta-analysis (NMA) has compared the relative effectiveness of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics for reducing the risk of GI symptoms in critically ill patients.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate their comparative effects in preventing GI symptoms and improving clinical outcomes.

Methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched through June 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials enrolled critically ill adults and compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with controls (placebo or usual care). The primary outcome was GI symptom incidence. Secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, infectious complications, and adverse events. A frequentist random-effects NMA was conducted. Treatment rankings were exploratory, and certainty of evidence was not formally assessed.

Results: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials involving 5,073 patients were included in the analysis of GI symptoms. Compared with control, synbiotics significantly reduced the risk of GI symptoms (risk ratio [RR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.77), as did prebiotics (RR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.87). Probiotics produced a similar directional effect, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.10). No significant differences were found between the active interventions. Subgroup analyses suggested differences according to the ICU population. Among medical intensive care patients, prebiotics were associated with a lower risk of GI symptoms than control, whereas probiotics and synbiotics were associated with a lower risk among surgical intensive care patients.

Conclusions: Synbiotics and prebiotics were associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal symptoms in critically ill patients, whereas probiotics showed a similar but statistically nonsignificant effect. No active intervention was significantly superior to another. The findings suggest that the relative benefits of these interventions may differ between medical and surgical intensive care populations. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously because certainty of evidence was not formally assessed.PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251015729; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251015729.

危重患者的益生元、益生菌和合成菌治疗:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:危重患者经常出现肠道生态失调,导致胃肠道(GI)症状和感染并发症。没有网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较益生元、益生菌和合成菌在降低危重患者胃肠道症状风险方面的相对有效性。目的:本研究旨在评价其在预防胃肠道症状和改善临床预后方面的比较效果。方法:检索至2025年6月的MEDLINE、CENTRAL和Web of Science。符合条件的随机对照试验纳入危重成人,并将益生元、益生菌或合成菌与对照组(安慰剂或常规护理)进行比较。主要终点是胃肠道症状的发生率。次要结局包括死亡率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、机械通气时间、感染并发症和不良事件。进行了频率随机效应NMA。治疗排名是探索性的,证据的确定性没有正式评估。结果:33项随机对照试验涉及5073例患者纳入胃肠道症状分析。与对照组相比,益生元显著降低了胃肠道症状的风险(风险比[RR] 0.52; 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.35至0.77),益生元也显著降低了胃肠道症状的风险(风险比[RR] 0.66; 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.49至0.87)。益生菌也有类似的定向作用,但差异无统计学意义(RR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.60 ~ 1.10)。在积极干预之间没有发现显著差异。亚组分析显示根据ICU人群存在差异。在内科重症监护患者中,益生菌与胃肠道症状的风险较低相关,而在外科重症监护患者中,益生菌和合成菌与胃肠道症状的风险较低相关。结论:合成菌和益生元与危重患者胃肠道症状的风险显著降低相关,而益生菌表现出相似但统计学上不显著的效果。没有积极干预显著优于其他干预。研究结果表明,这些干预措施的相对益处可能在内科和外科重症监护人群中有所不同。然而,由于没有正式评估证据的确定性,对结果的解释应谨慎。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD420251015729;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251015729。
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
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书