Evidence Hub

Comparison of iloprost therapy versus non-iloprost therapy for severe frostbite: a retrospective cohort study of two Canadian cities

D. O’Dochartaigh, Matthew Douma, C. Picard, E. Violato, Alexander Poole, Josianne Gauthier, Alexis Armour, Daniel Tiwana et al.

BMJ Open, 2026

257 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Objectives Frostbite is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentations in Canada. Iloprost, a prostacyclin analogue, has been investigated to reduce the risk of amputation with its use expanding. Two Canadian cities implemented iloprost over different times leading to a practice variation that allowed for treatment comparison. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of iloprost compared with non-iloprost treatment. Secondary objectives include assessing the impact of iloprost dosage and homelessness. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult severe frostbite cases presenting to EDs in Calgary and Edmonton between November 2021 and April 2024. Data were abstracted from clinical databases and analysed for demographic and injury characteristics, treatment and amputation outcomes. Results Of 1812 total ED encounters for frostbite, 257 patients with grades 2–4 extremity frostbite were included for analysis. Logistic regression found that overall patients receiving iloprost were associated with reduced likelihood of any amputation (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96) and fewer digit amputations (p<0.001). In particular, iloprost use was associated with reduced amputation rates in grade 3 injuries compared with non-iloprost care (30% vs 52%, p=0.042). Although over 80% of patients with grade 4 frostbite required amputations regardless of iloprost treatment, its use was associated with improved digit salvage, with 10% fewer digit segments requiring…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 257 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free