Zhao

Hyperbaric oxygen reduced ulcer size but unclear effects on healing and major amputation risk compared to a mixed bag of alternative treatments (Systematic Review)

Citation:  

Zhao D, Luo S, Xu W, Hu J, Lin S, Wang N. Efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy used in patients with diabetic foot: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clinical therapeutics. 2017 Oct 1;39(10):2088-94.

 

Purpose:

The efficacy and safety profile of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in patients with diabetic foot ulcer have been controversial in recent years. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of HBOT in patients with diabetic foot ulcer.

Methods:

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for controlled trials. The efficacy end points included the incidence of healed ulcers, major amputations, minor amputations, and reduction in the ulcer wound area. The tolerability end point was the incidence of adverse events.

Findings:

Nine randomized clinical trials involving 526 patients met the inclusion criteria.

No difference was found in the incidence of healed ulcers (risk ratio [RR]: 2.22; 95% CI, 0.87–5.62; P: 0.32; I-sq 81%), minor amputations (RR: 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39–2.29; P: 0.91; I-sq 74%), major amputations (RR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.17–1.28; P: 0.14; I-sq: 61%), and adverse events (RR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64– 1.56; P: 0.99; I-sq: 26%) between the HBOT and standard therapy (ST) groups.

HBOT was associated with a greater reduction in the ulcer wound area versus ST (standard mean difference 1.12; 95% CI, 0.20–2.04; P: 0.04; I-sq: 70%). Implications:

Conclusion:

No differences existed between HBOT and ST with respect to the incidence of healed ulcers, risk of minor or major amputations, and adverse events. HBOT was associated with a greater reduction in the ulcer wound area than ST. HBOT is a clinically meaningful adjuvant therapy for patients with diabetic foot ulcer.

 

Appraiser comments:

  1. Generally sound meta-analysis.
  2. Search strategies not given so we cannot comment on reliability of the search.
  3. Time to outcome not stated. This is particularly problematic for DFU. Evidence suggests that in the short term there is no advantage with HBOT but potentially the longer term (months to years) there may be a benefit.
  4. Authors have combined the outcomes ‘indication for [major] amputation’ and ‘major amputation’ here. The former is an outcome from Fedorko 2016 and has been questioned. See 6 below.
  5. Authors conclusions ignore the direction of pooled effects and concentrate on the ‘not statistically significant character’ of the result
  6. Of interest: Fedorko 2016 scores very well RoB but this trial has received vigorous criticism in the way it was conducted (see Murad MH. Comment on Fedorko et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not reduce indications for amputation in patients with diabetes with nonhealing ulcers of the lower limb: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: 392–399. Diabetes care. 2016 Aug 1;39(8):e135-; Huang ET. Comment on Fedorko et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not reduce indications for amputation in patients with diabetes with nonhealing ulcers of the lower limb: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: 392–399. Diabetes care. 2016 Aug 1;39(8):e133-4.; Response from Fedorko et al here: Fedorko L, Bowen JM, Jones W, Oreopoulos G, Goeree R, Hopkins RB, O’Reilly DJ. Response to Comments on Fedorko et al. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Does Not Reduce Indications for Amputation in Patients With Diabetes With Nonhealing Ulcers of the Lower Limb: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: 392–399. Diabetes care. 2016 Aug 1;39(8):e136-7.)

 

Sumhorsa.gif

BACK