Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38378568›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2024

Safety, feasibility, and impact on the gut microbiome of kefir administration in critically ill adults.

Vinod K Gupta, Sanu Rajendraprasad, Mahmut Ozkan, Dhanya Ramachandran, Sumera Ahmad, Johan S Bakken, Krzysztof Laudanski, Ognjen Gajic, Brent Bauer, Simon Zec and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05416814 (Safety and Feasibility of Kefir Administration in Critically Ill Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05416814 early_phase1completednot on this map

Safety and Feasibility of Kefir Administration in Critically Ill Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2022 to 2023Enrolled54ConditionsCritically IllArmsKefir
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Kefir revisited: Insights from the North Caucasus.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Effects of AddingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Microbiome: A Key Regulator of Body-Brain Interactions.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Vinod K Gupta *Microbiome Program, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sanu Rajendraprasad *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mahmut OzkanDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Dhanya RamachandranDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sumera AhmadDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Johan S BakkenSection of Infectious Diseases, St Luke's Hospital, Duluth, MN, USA.
Krzysztof LaudanskiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ognjen GajicDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brent BauerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Simon ZecDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
David W FreemanDepartment of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Sahil KhannaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Aditya ShahDivision of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Joseph H SkalskiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jaeyun SungMicrobiome Program, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Sung.Jaeyun@mayo.edu.
Lioudmila V KarnatovskaiaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Karnatovskaia.Lioudmila@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9689-3792
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USSt. Luke's Hospital · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDysbiosis of the gut microbiome is frequent in the intensive care unit (ICU), potentially leading to a heightened risk of nosocomial infections. Enhancing the gut microbiome has been proposed as a strategic approach to mitigate potential adverse outcomes. While prior research on select probiotic supplements has not successfully shown to improve gut microbial diversity, fermented foods offer a promising alternative. In this open-label phase I safety and feasibility study, we examined the safety and feasibility of kefir as an initial step towards utilizing fermented foods to mitigate gut dysbiosis in critically ill patients.

methodsWe administered kefir in escalating doses (60 mL, followed by 120 mL after 12 h, then 240 mL daily) to 54 critically ill patients with an intact gastrointestinal tract. To evaluate kefir's safety, we monitored for gastrointestinal symptoms. Feasibility was determined by whether patients received a minimum of 75% of their assigned kefir doses. To assess changes in the gut microbiome composition following kefir administration, we collected two stool samples from 13 patients: one within 72 h of admission to the ICU and another at least 72 h after the first stool sample.

resultsAfter administering kefir, none of the 54 critically ill patients exhibited signs of kefir-related bacteremia. No side effects like bloating, vomiting, or aspiration were noted, except for diarrhea in two patients concurrently on laxatives. Out of the 393 kefir doses prescribed for all participants, 359 (91%) were successfully administered. We were able to collect an initial stool sample from 29 (54%) patients and a follow-up sample from 13 (24%) patients. Analysis of the 26 paired samples revealed no increase in gut microbial α-diversity between the two timepoints. However, there was a significant improvement in the Gut Microbiome Wellness Index (GMWI) by the second timepoint (P = 0.034, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test); this finding supports our hypothesis that kefir administration can improve gut health in critically ill patients. Additionally, the known microbial species in kefir were found to exhibit varying levels of engraftment in patients' guts.

conclusionsProviding kefir to critically ill individuals is safe and feasible. Our findings warrant a larger evaluation of kefir's safety, tolerability, and impact on gut microbiome dysbiosis in patients admitted to the ICU.

trial registrationNCT05416814; trial registered on June 13, 2022.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeKefirAdultCritical IllnessDysbiosisFeasibility StudiesHumansCritical illnessGMWIGut microbiomeICUKefirProbiotics

Identifiers

PMID38378568
PMCPMC10880344
OpenAlexW4391952026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.