The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of immunonutrition vs standard nutrition in cancer patients treated with surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science were searched. Sixty‐one randomized controlled trials were included. Immunonutrition was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative infectious complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64–0.79]), including a reduced risk of wound infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60–0.87]), respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59–0.84]), and urinary tract infection (RR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51–0.94]) as well as a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53–0.91]) and a reduced hospital stay (MD −2.12 days [95% CI −2.72 to −1.52]). No differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to sepsis or all‐cause mortality. Subgroup analyses revealed that receiving arginine + nucleotides + ω‐3 fatty acids and receiving enteral immunonutrition reduced the rates of wound infection and respiratory tract infection. The application of immunonutrition at 25–30 kcal/kg/d for 5–7 days reduced the rate of respiratory tract infection. Perioperative immunonutrition reduced the rate of wound infection. For malnourished patients, immunonutrition shortened the hospitalization time. Therefore, immunonutrition reduces postoperative infection complications and shortens hospital stays but does not reduce all‐cause mortality. Patients who are malnourished before surgery who receive arginine + nucleotides + ω‐3 fatty acids (25–30 kcal/kg/d) via the gastrointestinal tract during the perioperative period (5–7 days) may show better clinical efficacy.
Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the identification of homogeneous subgroups and phenotypes is the first step toward precision critical care. We aimed to explore whether ARDS phenotypes can be identified using clinical data, are reproducible and are associated with clinical outcomes and treatment response. Methods This study is based on a retrospective analysis of data from the telehealth intensive care unit (eICU) collaborative research database and three ARDS randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALVEOLI, FACTT and SAILS trials). We derived phenotypes in the eICU by cluster analysis based on clinical data and compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of each phenotype. The reproducibility of the derived phenotypes was tested using the data from three RCTs, and treatment effects were evaluated. Results Three clinical phenotypes were identified in the training cohort of 3875 ARDS patients. Of the three phenotypes identified, phenotype I (n = 1565; 40%) was associated with fewer laboratory abnormalities, less organ dysfunction and the lowest in-hospital mortality rate (8%). Phenotype II (n = 1232; 32%) was correlated with more inflammation and shock and had a higher mortality rate (18%). Phenotype III (n = 1078; 28%) was strongly correlated with renal dysfunction and acidosis and had the highest mortality rate (22%). These results were validated using the data from the validation cohort (n = 3670) and three RCTs (n = 2289) and had reproducibility. Patients with these ARDS phenotypes had different treatment responses to randomized interventions. Specifically, in the ALVEOLI cohort, the effects of ventilation strategy (high PEEP vs low PEEP) on ventilator-free days differed by phenotype (p = 0.001); in the FACTT cohort, there was a significant interaction between phenotype and fluid-management strategy for 60-day mortality (p = 0.01). The fluid-conservative strategy was associated with improved mortality in phenotype II but had the opposite effect in phenotype III. Conclusion Three clinical phenotypes of ARDS were identified and had different clinical characteristics and outcomes. The analysis shows evidence of a phenotype-specific treatment benefit in the ALVEOLI and FACTT trials. These findings may improve the identification of distinct subsets of ARDS patients for exploration in future RCTs.
Acute diarrhoea continues to be a leading cause of morbidity, hospitalisation, and mortality worldwide, and probiotics have been proposed as a complementary therapy in the treatment of acute diarrhoea. The goal of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of three combined probiotic strains, Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07, Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001, and Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, as an adjunct to rehydration therapy in treatment of acute watery diarrhoea in hospitalised children. Eligible diarrheal children were randomised into intervention group (IG, n=96, conventional treatment for diarrhoea in combination with probiotics) and control group (CG, n=98, conventional treatment for diarrhoea without probiotics). The primary assessments of this study were duration of diarrhoea and hospital stay and improvement in diarrhoea symptoms. Significantly more children in the IG showed improvements in diarrhoea (defined as a decrease of stool frequency to no more than four times per day and an improved stool consistency within 24-48 h after the treatment) than those in the CG (96.9 vs 79.6%, P<0.05). Children supplemented with the mixed strains had a 22.5 h shorter (121.4±13.7 h vs 143.9±19.8 h) mean duration of diarrhoea and 1.2 d shorter hospital stays (5.1±1.2 d vs 6.3±1.4 d) than children only receiving the rehydration therapy (P<0.05). The prevalence of constipation of children in the IG (3.1%) was markedly lower (P<0.05) than that of children in the CG (13.3%) after treatment. In conclusion, the mixture of three probiotic strains given to children aged 1-3 years resulted in shorter durations of diarrhoea and hospitalisation and a higher percentage of improved children.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.