Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of the original Cochrane Review published in July 2005 and updated previously in 2012 and 2016. Cancer is a significant global health issue. Radiotherapy is a treatment modality for many malignancies, and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI), developing months or years following radiotherapy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based on the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of complications following surgery and radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating or preventing late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) compared to regimens that excluded HBOT. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. survival from time of randomisation to death from any cause; 2. complete or substantial resolution of clinical problem; 3. site-specific outcomes; and 4. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 5. resolution of pain; 6. improvement in quality of life, function, or both; and 7. site-specific outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies contributed to this review (1071 participants) with publications ranging from 1985 to 2022. We added four new studies to this updated review and evidence for the treatment of radiation proctitis, radiation cystitis, and the prevention and treatment of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). HBOT may not prevent death at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.83; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 166 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence that HBOT may result in complete resolution or provide significant improvement of LRTI (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89; I2 = 64%; 5 RCTs, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HBOT may result in a large reduction in wound dehiscence following head and neck soft tissue surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.94; I2 = 70%; 2 RCTs, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pain scores in ORN improve slightly after HBOT at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -10.72, 95% CI -18.97 to -2.47; I2 = 40%; 2 RCTs, 157 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, HBOT results in a higher risk of a reduction in visual acuity (RR 4.03, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.84; 5 RCTs, 438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was a risk of ear barotrauma in people receiving HBOT when no sham pressurisation was used for the control group (RR 9.08, 95% CI 2.21 to 37.26; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 357 participants; high-certainty evidence), but no such increase when a sham pressurisation was employed (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.21; I2 = 74%; 2 RCTs, 158 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These small studies suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, bladder and rectum, HBOT may be associated with improved outcomes (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). HBOT may also result in a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and a modest reduction in pain following head and neck irradiation. However, HBOT is unlikely to influence the risk of death in the short term. HBOT also carries a risk of adverse events, including an increased risk of a reduction in visual acuity (usually temporary) and of ear barotrauma on compression. Hence, the application of HBOT to selected participants may be justified. The small number of studies and participants, and the methodological and reporting inadequacies of some of the primary studies included in this review demand a cautious interpretation. More information is required on the subset of disease severity and tissue type affected that is most likely to benefit from this therapy, the time for which we can expect any benefits to persist and the most appropriate oxygen dose. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should also be undertaken.

Biomarkers for the Early Diagnosis of Sepsis in Burns: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of all biomarkers studied to date for the early diagnosis of sepsis in hospitalized patients with burns. BACKGROUND: Early clinical diagnosis of sepsis in burns patients is notoriously difficult due to the hypermetabolic nature of thermal injury. A considerable variety of biomarkers have been proposed as potentially useful adjuncts to assist with making a timely and accurate diagnosis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, and Medline In-Process to February 2020. We included diagnostic studies involving burns patients that assessed biomarkers against a reference sepsis definition of positive blood cultures or a combination of microbiologically proven infection with systemic inflammation and/or organ dysfunction. Pooled measures of diagnostic accuracy were derived for each biomarker using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 28 studies evaluating 57 different biomarkers and incorporating 1517 participants. Procalcitonin was moderately sensitive (73%) and specific (75%) for sepsis in patients with burns. C-reactive protein was highly sensitive (86%) but poorly specific (54%). White blood cell count had poor sensitivity (47%) and moderate specificity (65%). All other biomarkers had insufficient studies to include in a meta-analysis, however brain natriuretic peptide, stroke volume index, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, and cell-free DNA (on day 14 post-injury) showed the most promise in single studies. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity reflecting different study populations, sepsis definitions and test thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The most widely studied biomarkers are poorly predictive for sepsis in burns patients. Brain natriuretic peptide, stroke volume index, TNF-alpha, and cell-free DNA showed promise in single studies and should be further evaluated. A standardized approach to the evaluation of diagnostic markers (including time of sampling, cut-offs, and outcomes) would be useful.

Neurological implications of COVID-19: a review of the science and clinical guidance.

COVID-19 is a significant global health burden. The pulmonary morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 is well described, however, there is mounting evidence of neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV-2, which may be of prognostic significance. This paper summarises the available evidence in order to provide clinicians with a concise summary of the peripheral and central neurological manifestations of COVID-19, discusses specific issues regarding the management of chronic neurological disease in the context of the pandemic, and provides a summary of the thrombotic implications of the disease for the neurologist.

Subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) for treating venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are complex, costly, and their prevalence is expected to increase as populations age. Venous congestion is a possible cause of venous leg ulcers, which subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) attempts to address by removing the connection between deep and superficial veins (perforator veins). The effectiveness of SEPS in the treatment of venous leg ulcers, however, is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that examined the use of SEPS independently or in combination with another intervention for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 322 participants. There were three different comparators: SEPS plus compression therapy versus compression therapy (two trials); SEPS versus the Linton procedure (a type of open surgery) (one trial); and SEPS plus saphenous surgery versus saphenous surgery (one trial). The age range of participants was 30 to 82, with an equal spread of male and female participants. All trials were conducted in hospital settings with varying durations of follow-up, from 18 months to 6 years. One trial included participants who had both healed and active ulcers, with the rest including only participants with active ulcers.There was the potential for reporting bias in all trials and performance bias and detection bias in three trials. Participants in the fourth trial received one of two surgical procedures, and this study was at low risk of performance bias and detection bias.SEPS + compression therapy versus compression therapy (2 studies; 208 participants)There may be an increase in the proportion of healed ulcers at 24 months in people treated with SEPS and compression therapy compared with compression therapy alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.33; 1 study; 196 participants); low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice, once for risk of bias and once for imprecision).It is uncertain whether SEPS reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence at 24 months (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.76; 2 studies; 208 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The included trials did not measure or report the following outcomes; time to complete healing, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), adverse events, pain, duration of hospitalisation, and district nursing care requirements.SEPS versus Linton approach (1 study; 39 participants)It is uncertain whether there is a difference in ulcer healing at 24 months between participants treated with SEPS and those treated with the Linton procedure (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of recurrence at 60 months: (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.30; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The Linton procedure is possibly associated with more adverse events than SEPS (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The outcomes time to complete healing, HRQOL, pain, duration of hospitalisation and district nursing care requirements were either not measured, reported or data were not available for analysis.SEPS + saphenous surgery versus saphenous surgery (1 study; 75 participants)It is uncertain whether there is a difference in ulcer healing at 12 months between participants treated with SEPS and saphenous surgery versus those treated with saphenous surgery alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43; 1 study; 22 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of recurrence at 12 months: (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.91; 1 study; 75 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).Finally, we are uncertain whether there is an increase in adverse events in the SEPS group (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 4.90; 1 study; 75 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).The outcomes time to complete healing, HRQOL, serious adverse events, pain, duration of hospitalisation, and district nursing care requirements were either not measured, reported or data were not available for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The role of SEPS for the treatment of venous leg ulcers remains uncertain. Only low or very low-certainty evidence was available for inclusion. Due to small sample sizes and risk of bias in the included studies, we were unable to determine the potential benefits and harms of SEPS for this purpose. Only four studies met our inclusion criteria, three were very small, and one was poorly reported. Further high-quality studies addressing the use of SEPS in venous leg ulcer management are likely to change the conclusions of this review.

Reliability of venous blood gas sodium, potassium and creatinine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of correlation between sodium, potassium and creatinine readings between point-of-care venous blood gas (VBG) and laboratory biochemistry measurements (LBM). METHODS: Data was obtained from three Monash Health (one of the largest health networks in metropolitan Melbourne) emergency departments. 16,527 VBGs were matched with LBM for sodium, 16,437 for potassium and 8,597 for creatinine. Pearson correlation and further subgroup analyses were carried out to explore if acid-base imbalance affected sodium, potassium or creatinine reliability in VBG. RESULTS: The range of VBG values showed more variation in comparison to LBM. There was good correlation (r>0.8, p<0.001) between measured values with the exception of potassium in acidaemia, however, there was consistent and statistically significant difference in measured values. CONCLUSIONS: The small mean differences across all three parameters observed although statistically significant are unlikely to be clinically significant. With minor calibrations, this would be an easily corrected problem. As such, we recommend that sodium, potassium and creatinine measurements can be used interchangeably between the VBG and LBM, with the exception of potassium levels in acidaemia. Potassium levels in acidaemia should be used with caution due to lower correlation.