高压氧治疗坏死性软组织感染:临床结果的回顾性队列分析。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Akira Shishido, Gregory Schrank, Alexander Vostal, Megan Uehling, Ravi Tripathi, Sai Chintalapati, Lauren Conway, Nikki Kus, Laura DiChiacchio, Marc Kai, Joseph A Kufera, Ronald Rabinowitz
{"title":"高压氧治疗坏死性软组织感染:临床结果的回顾性队列分析。","authors":"Akira Shishido, Gregory Schrank, Alexander Vostal, Megan Uehling, Ravi Tripathi, Sai Chintalapati, Lauren Conway, Nikki Kus, Laura DiChiacchio, Marc Kai, Joseph A Kufera, Ronald Rabinowitz","doi":"10.1089/sur.2024.285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is an adjunctive therapy for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) that remains controversial due to lack of quality clinical evidence. This retrospective cohort examines the impact of HBOT on clinical outcomes from NSTI at a single center where evaluation for HBOT is standard of care. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted HBOT service and NSTI cases went without HBOT treatment, allowing for a comparison of treatment groups. The clinical outcomes of 253 patients with NSTI that were evaluated for HBOT were compared; 143 (56.3%) received HBOT and 110 (43.3%) did not. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Baseline characteristics were similar except for surface area of the wounds and distribution on the extremities. More patients in the non-HBOT group died within 90 days of admission than those in the HBOT group (5.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.015). Further, patients with large wounds (≥450 cm<sup>2</sup>) and those with high APACHE II scores (≥18) who underwent HBOT had significantly lower risk of death than patients who did not (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.72). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our study shows that there was a mortality benefit in patients with NSTI that was more significant in patients with large wounds and higher APACHE II scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":22109,"journal":{"name":"Surgical infections","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Akira Shishido, Gregory Schrank, Alexander Vostal, Megan Uehling, Ravi Tripathi, Sai Chintalapati, Lauren Conway, Nikki Kus, Laura DiChiacchio, Marc Kai, Joseph A Kufera, Ronald Rabinowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/sur.2024.285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is an adjunctive therapy for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) that remains controversial due to lack of quality clinical evidence. This retrospective cohort examines the impact of HBOT on clinical outcomes from NSTI at a single center where evaluation for HBOT is standard of care. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted HBOT service and NSTI cases went without HBOT treatment, allowing for a comparison of treatment groups. The clinical outcomes of 253 patients with NSTI that were evaluated for HBOT were compared; 143 (56.3%) received HBOT and 110 (43.3%) did not. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Baseline characteristics were similar except for surface area of the wounds and distribution on the extremities. More patients in the non-HBOT group died within 90 days of admission than those in the HBOT group (5.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.015). Further, patients with large wounds (≥450 cm<sup>2</sup>) and those with high APACHE II scores (≥18) who underwent HBOT had significantly lower risk of death than patients who did not (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.72). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our study shows that there was a mortality benefit in patients with NSTI that was more significant in patients with large wounds and higher APACHE II scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical infections\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical infections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2024.285\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical infections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2024.285","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高压氧治疗(HBOT)是一种治疗坏死性软组织感染(NSTIs)的辅助疗法,由于缺乏高质量的临床证据,仍然存在争议。该回顾性队列研究了HBOT对NSTI临床结果的影响,在单一中心,HBOT的评估是标准的护理。方法:COVID-19大流行中断了HBOT服务,NSTI病例未接受HBOT治疗,并进行治疗组比较。比较253例经HBOT评估的NSTI患者的临床结果;143例(56.3%)接受HBOT治疗,110例(43.3%)未接受。结果:除创面面积和四肢分布不同外,两组患者基线特征相似。非HBOT组患者入院后90天内死亡人数高于HBOT组(5.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.015)。此外,大伤口(≥450 cm2)和APACHE II评分高(≥18)的患者接受HBOT的死亡风险显著低于未接受HBOT的患者(优势比[OR] 0.12, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.02-0.72)。结论:我们的研究表明,创伤较大且APACHE II评分较高的NSTI患者的死亡率获益更为显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is an adjunctive therapy for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) that remains controversial due to lack of quality clinical evidence. This retrospective cohort examines the impact of HBOT on clinical outcomes from NSTI at a single center where evaluation for HBOT is standard of care. Methods: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted HBOT service and NSTI cases went without HBOT treatment, allowing for a comparison of treatment groups. The clinical outcomes of 253 patients with NSTI that were evaluated for HBOT were compared; 143 (56.3%) received HBOT and 110 (43.3%) did not. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar except for surface area of the wounds and distribution on the extremities. More patients in the non-HBOT group died within 90 days of admission than those in the HBOT group (5.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.015). Further, patients with large wounds (≥450 cm2) and those with high APACHE II scores (≥18) who underwent HBOT had significantly lower risk of death than patients who did not (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.72). Conclusion: Our study shows that there was a mortality benefit in patients with NSTI that was more significant in patients with large wounds and higher APACHE II scores.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical infections
Surgical infections INFECTIOUS DISEASES-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Infections provides comprehensive and authoritative information on the biology, prevention, and management of post-operative infections. Original articles cover the latest advancements, new therapeutic management strategies, and translational research that is being applied to improve clinical outcomes and successfully treat post-operative infections. Surgical Infections coverage includes: -Peritonitis and intra-abdominal infections- Surgical site infections- Pneumonia and other nosocomial infections- Cellular and humoral immunity- Biology of the host response- Organ dysfunction syndromes- Antibiotic use- Resistant and opportunistic pathogens- Epidemiology and prevention- The operating room environment- Diagnostic studies
×
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