Frostbite treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the outcomes of various frostbite treatments to determine which treatments are effective. We also planned to perform meta-analyses of the outcomes of individual treatments for which suitable data were available. Main Body We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and EMBase to identify primary references from January 1, 1900, to June 18, 2022. After eliminating duplicates, we screened abstracts to identify eligible studies containing information on treatment and outcomes of Grade 2 to 4 frostbite. We performed meta-analyses of groups of articles that provided sufficient data. We registered our review in the prospective registry of systematic reviews PROSPERO (Nr. 293,693). We identified 4,835 potentially relevant studies. We excluded 4,610 studies after abstract screening. We evaluated the full text of the remaining 225 studies, excluding 154. Ultimately, we included 71 articles with 978 cases of frostbite originating from 1 randomized controlled trial, 20 cohort studies and 51 case reports. We found wide variations in classifications of treatments and outcomes. The two meta-analyses we performed both found that patients treated with thrombolytics within 24 h had better outcomes than patients treated with other modalities. The one randomized controlled trial found that the prostacyclin analog iloprost was beneficial in severe frostbite if administered within 48 h. Conclusions Iloprost and thrombolysis may be beneficial for treating frostbite. The effectiveness of other commonly used treatments has not been validated. More prospective data from clinical trials or an international registry may help to inform optimal treatment.