Cargando…

Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens, variously constituted with topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP), appear highly effective for preventing ICU-acquired infections but only within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCT’s)....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Hurley, James C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34470654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03744-w
_version_ 1783746849797046272
author Hurley, James C.
author_facet Hurley, James C.
author_sort Hurley, James C.
collection PubMed
description Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens, variously constituted with topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP), appear highly effective for preventing ICU-acquired infections but only within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCT’s). Confusingly, SDD is also a concept which, if true, implies population benefit. The SDD concept can finally be reified  in humans using the broad accumulated evidence base, including studies of TAP and PPAP that used non-concurrent controls (NCC), as a natural experiment. However, this test implicates overall population harm with higher event rates associated with SDD use within the ICU context.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8408564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84085642021-09-01 Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm? Hurley, James C. Crit Care Viewpoint Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens, variously constituted with topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP), appear highly effective for preventing ICU-acquired infections but only within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCT’s). Confusingly, SDD is also a concept which, if true, implies population benefit. The SDD concept can finally be reified  in humans using the broad accumulated evidence base, including studies of TAP and PPAP that used non-concurrent controls (NCC), as a natural experiment. However, this test implicates overall population harm with higher event rates associated with SDD use within the ICU context. BioMed Central 2021-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8408564/ /pubmed/34470654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03744-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Viewpoint
Hurley, James C.
Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title_full Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title_fullStr Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title_full_unstemmed Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title_short Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
title_sort selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?
topic Viewpoint
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34470654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03744-w
work_keys_str_mv AT hurleyjamesc selectivedigestivedecontaminationaseeminglyeffectiveregimenwithindividualbenefitoraflawedconceptwithpopulationharm