Table 2

List of studies mentioned with positive effects of probiotics on critically ill patients

Study

Study design

Number of patients

Probiotics/Synbiotics

Results

Alberda et al. [15]

double-blind, randomized, placebo-control.

28 ICU patients: 14 verum vs 14 placebo.

9 × 10¹¹ L. casei, L. plantarum, Strept. salivarius, B. infantis L. acidophilus, B. longum, L. delbrueckii, B. breve.

increase in IgA + IgG in verum group.

Spindler-Vessel et al. [16]

nonblinded, randomized, nonplacebo.

113 ICU trauma pat.: 87 verum vs 26 placebo.

10¹⁰ of P. pentosaceus, 10¹⁰ L. paracasei,10¹⁰ L. plantarum +2,5 g ß-glucan, inulin, pectin, starch.

reduction in: pneumonias+ intestinal permeability + procalcitonin levels.

Olah et al. [17]

double-blind, randomized, placebo-control.

45 patients with acute pancreatitis: 23 vs 22

10⁹ L plantarum 299 vs heat killed bacteria +10 g oat fibre.

less septic complications in verum group.

Forestier et al. [18]

double-blind, randomized, placebo-control.

208 ICU patients: 104 verum vs104 placebo.

10⁹ Lact. rhamnosus, 10⁹ Lact. casei.

P. aeruginosa colonization + infection is delayed in verum.

Kotzampassi et al. [19]

double-blind, randomized, placebo-control.

65 ICU trauma pat.:32 verum vs 33 placebo.

Synbiotic 2000 Forte.

reduced rate of infection, SIRS, severe sepsis + mortality in verum.

Klarin et al. [20]

nonblinded, randomized, nonplacebo.

44 ICU patients: 22 verum vs 22

10⁹ Lact. plantarum 299v + oatmeal.

colonisation of C. difficile not detectable in verum group.

Morrow et al. [21]

double-blind, randomized, placebo-control.

146 ICU patients: 73 verum vs 73 placebo.

10¹⁰ Lact. rhamnosus GG10⁹ Lact. casei.

development of VAP less likely + less CDAD in verum group.

Frohmader et al. [22]

double-blind, randomized, placebo control.

45 ICU patients: 20 verum vs 25 placebo.

VSL#3.

effective in reducing frequency of liquid stool.

Jacobi et al. Gut Pathogens 2011 3:2   doi:10.1186/1757-4749-3-2