Prospective, randomized comparison of lansoprazole suspension, and intermittent intravenous famotidine on gastric pH and acid production in critically ill neurosurgical patients

Prophylactic acid suppressants in patients with primary neurologic injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Neurocritical care patients are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill adults admitted with a primary neurologic injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to placebo/no prophylaxis, as well as to each other. The primary outcome was in-ICU gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), nosocomial pneumonia, and other complications.

RESULTS

We identified 14 relevant trials enrolling 1036 neurocritical care patients; 11 trials enrolling 930 patients were included in the meta-analysis. H2RAs resulted in a lower incidence of GIB as compared to placebo or no prophylaxis (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.58; p < 0.001); PPIs with a lower risk of GIB compared to placebo/no prophylaxis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in GIB comparing PPIs with H2RAs (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.06; p = 0.07; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In neurocritical care patients, the overall high or unclear risk of bias of individual trials, the low event rates, and modest sample sizes preclude strong clinical inferences about the utility of SUP.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis has been shown to lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates. Various agents have been studied, and the optimal strategy continues to be contested. This study evaluates the efficacy between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists. Small sample sizes and methodology flaws limited prior studies.

STUDY

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of PPI and histamine-2-receptor antagonist reporting rates of GIB and standardized intensive care outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A trial sequential analysis was performed to guard against errors.

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials of 28,526 patients with a mean age of 57.83±17.35 years and 30.82% females. In our pooled analysis, PPI outperformed its comparator (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82) in clinically significant GIB. PPI re-demonstrated significant reduction in overt GIB (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). No differences between groups was noted toward all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) or incidence of pneumonia (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.51). Duration of stay (SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.04-0.17) and ventilator days (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.01-0.04) were indifferent between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients, PPI was associated with reduced clinically significant or overt GIB. No differences in pneumonia were seen with the use of either agent. Trial sequential analysis for clinically significant GIB ruled out the risk for false-positive results, and thereby it is unlikely that future trials will affect our conclusions.

Are Proton Pump Inhibitors More Effective Than Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

Histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) have been largely replaced by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) despite the inconclusive evidence concerning comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of PPIs and H₂RAs on SUP in real-world setting.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 19, 2021. We included cohort studies comparing PPIs with H₂RAs in critically ill adult patients and explicitly reporting the outcome of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess potential risk of bias. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and only the studies with adjusted effect estimates were pooled. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Thirteen cohort studies (N = 145 149) were eligible and 11 of them available for full texts were of low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of adjusted effect estimates indicated that PPIs were associated with a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding, compared with H₂RAs (8 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-3.01, low certainty). Post hoc pooling analysis also suggested that PPIs were associated with a slightly higher risk of mortality in comparison with H₂RAs (7 studies, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13-1.42, low certainty).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The systematic review of cohort studies showed that PPIs were associated with higher risks of GI bleeding and mortality, although the certainty of evidence was low. Overall, we suggest not excluding H₂RAs for SUP, while further studies are essential for elucidating the risk stratification, optimal regimen, and specific duration.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.

RESULTS

Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with acid-suppressive drug therapy is widely utilized in critically ill patients following neurologic injury for the prevention of clinically important stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB). Data supporting SUP, however, largely originates from studies conducted during an era where practices were vastly different than what is considered routine by today's standard. This is particularly true in neurocritical care patients. In fact, the routine provision of SUP has been challenged due to an increasing prevalence of adverse drug events with acid-suppressive therapy and the perception that CIB rates are sparse. This narrative review will discuss current controversies with SUP as they apply to neurocritical care patients. Specifically, the pathophysiology, prevalence, and risk factors for CIB along with the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of acid-suppressive therapy will be described.

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole in preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, using cimetidine as an active comparator.

METHODS

A pre-specified non-inferiority limit (5%) was used to compare rates of significant upper GI bleeding in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study across 27 intensive care units in China. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability measures. Patients required mechanical ventilation and had at least one additional risk factor for stress ulcer bleeding. Patients were randomized to receive either active esomeprazole 40 mg, as a 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion twice daily, and an IV placebo cimetidine infusion or active cimetidine 50 mg/h, as a continuous infusion following an initial bolus of 300 mg, and placebo esomeprazole injections, given up to 14 days. Patients were blinded using this double-dummy technique.

RESULTS

Of 274 patients, 2.7% with esomeprazole and 4.6% with cimetidine had significant upper GI bleeding (bright red blood in the gastric tube not clearing after lavage or persistent Gastroccult-positive "coffee grounds" material). Non-inferiority of esomeprazole to cimetidine was demonstrated. The safety profiles of both drugs were similar and as expected in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole is effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, as demonstrated by the non-inferiority analysis using cimetidine as an active control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02157376.

Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.

Comparing efficacy of enteral nutrition plus ranitidine and enteral nutrition alone as stress ulcer prophylaxis

Aim: Adequacy of enteral nutrition (EN) alone as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of EN alone and ranitidine plus EN as SUP. Method: Critically ill adults with indications to receive SUP were randomized to ranitidine 50 mg IV every 8 h plus EN (SUP) or EN alone (non-SUP) group for 7 days. Besides, endoscopy was performed at the time of recruitment and on day 7. Results: During the study period, only one patient in each group of SUP and non-SUP experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. At the time of recruitment, gastric erosion and erythema were the most endoscopic findings in the SUP and non-SUP groups. These findings did not significantly change at the end of the study (p = 0.21). Conclusion: EN was at least effective as ranitidine plus EN as SUP.

PPI versus Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Injury Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This study compared proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) for prevention of low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related gastrointestinal (GI) erosion, ulcer and bleeding. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to December 31, 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs and H₂RAs for prevention of GI injury associated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) were collected. Two reviewers independently abstracted studies and patient characteristics and appraised study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. We included nine RCTs involving 1047 patients. The meta-analysis showed that PPIs were superior to H₂RAs for prevention of LDA-associated GI erosion/ulcer [odds ratio (OR=0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16–0.50] and bleeding (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.59). In conclusion, PPIs were superior to H₂RAs for prevention of LDA-related GI erosion/ulcer and bleeding. Higher quality, large, multicenter RCTs are needed to demonstrate the preventive effect of the two acid-suppressive drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of histamine receptor-2 antagonist versus proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients*

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Decision analysis model examining costs and effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Costs were expressed in 2012 U.S. dollars from the perspective of the institution and included drug regimens and the following outcomes: clinically significant stress-related mucosal bleed, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and Clostridium difficile infection. Effectiveness was the mortality risk associated with these outcomes and represented by survival. Costs, occurrence rates, and mortality probabilities were extracted from published data.

SETTING

A simulation model.

PATIENTS

A mixed adult ICU population.

INTERVENTIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Output variables were expected costs, expected survival rates, incremental cost, and incremental survival rate. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the drivers of incremental cost and incremental survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. For the base case analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist and $7,802 with proton pump inhibitor, resulting in a cost saving of $1,095 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The associated mortality probabilities were 3.819% and 3.825%, respectively, resulting in an absolute survival benefit of 0.006% with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The primary drivers of incremental cost and survival were the assumptions surrounding ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed. The probabilities that histamine receptor-2 antagonist was less costly and provided favorable survival were 89.4% and 55.7%, respectively. A secondary analysis assuming equal rates of C. difficile infection showed a cost saving of $908 with histamine receptor-2 antagonists, but the survival benefit of 0.0167% favored proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist therapy appears to reduce costs with survival benefit comparable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed are the variables most affecting these outcomes. The uncertainty in the findings justifies a prospective trial.

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients may develop bleeding caused by stress ulceration. Acid suppression is commonly prescribed for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding. Whether proton pump inhibitors are more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, CINHAL, online trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, WHO ICTRP), conference proceedings databases, and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled parallel group trials comparing proton pump inhibitors to histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients, published before March 2012.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding; secondary outcomes were nosocomial pneumonia, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and Clostridium difficile infection. Trial authors were contacted for additional or clarifying information.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials enrolling a total of 1,720 patients were included. Proton pump inhibitors were more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists at reducing clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.68; p = 0.002; I = 0%) and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.59; p < 0.0001; I = 15%). There were no differences between proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists in the risk of nosocomial pneumonia (relative risk 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.52; p = 0.76; I = 0%), ICU mortality (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.24; p = 0.91; I = 0%), or ICU length of stay (mean difference -0.54 days; 95% confidence interval -2.20 to 1.13; p = 0.53; I = 39%). No trials reported on C. difficile infection.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, proton pump inhibitors seem to be more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists in preventing clinically important and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by the trial methodology, differences between lower and higher quality trials, sparse data, and possible publication bias. We observed no differences between drugs in the risk of pneumonia, death, or ICU length of stay.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) present varying pharmacological efficacy in preventing stress ulcer bleeding (SUB) in intensive care units. The literature also reports disparate rates of ventilator-assisted pneumonia (VAP) as side effects of these treatments. We compared the cost-effectiveness of these two prophylactic pharmacological options.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree with a 60-day time horizon for patients at high risk for developing SUB, receiving either PPIs or H2RAs. For each treatment strategy, patients could be in one of three states of health: SUB, VAP, or no complication. Contemporary, clinically relevant probabilities were obtained from a broad literature search. Costs were estimated by using a representative US countrywide database. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Cost-effectiveness and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Probabilities of SUB and VAP were 1.3% and 10.3% for PPIs versus 6.6% and 10.3% for H2RAs, respectively. Lengths of stay and per diem costs were 24 days and US $2764 for SUB, 42 days and US $3310 for VAP, and 14 days and US $2993 for patients without complications. Average costs per no complication were US $58,700 for PPIs and US $63,920 for H2RAs. The H2RA strategy was dominated by PPIs. Sensitivity analysis showed that these findings were sensitive to VAP rates but PPIs remain cost-effective. The acceptability curve shows the stability of the probabilistic results according to varying willingness-to-pay values.

CONCLUSION

PPI prophylaxis is the most efficient prophylactic strategy in patients at high risk of developing SUB when compared with using H2RAs.

A randomized controlled study comparing omeprazole and cimetidine for the prophylaxis of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

OBJECT

Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are at high risk for severe stress-related upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding, which is predictive of higher mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of omeprazole and cimetidine compared with a placebo in the prevention and management of stress-related UGI bleeding in patients with ICH.

METHODS

In a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 184 surgically treated patients with CT-proven ICH within 72 hours of ictus and negative results for gastric occult blood testing were included. Of these patients, 165 who were qualified upon further evaluation were randomized into 3 groups: 58 patients received 40 mg intravenous omeprazole every 12 hours, 54 patients received 300 mg intravenous cimetidine every 6 hours, and 53 patients received a placebo. Patients whose gastric occult blood tests were positive at admission (n = 70) and during/after the prophylaxis procedure (n = 48) were treated with high-dose omeprazole at 80 mg bolus plus 8 mg/hr infusion for 3 days, followed by 40 mg intravenous omeprazole every 12 hours for 7 days.

RESULTS

Of the 165 assessable patients, stress-related UGI bleeding occurred in 9 (15.5%) in the omeprazole group compared with 15 patients (27.8%) in the cimetidine group and 24 patients (45.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.003). The occurrence of UGI bleeding was significantly related to death (p = 0.022). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in 14 patients (24.1%) receiving omeprazole, 12 (22.2%) receiving cimetidine, and 8 (15.1%) receiving placebo (p > 0.05). In patients with UGI bleeding in which high-dose omeprazole was initiated, UGI bleeding arrested within the first 3 days in 103 patients (87.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole significantly reduced the morbidity of stress-related UGI bleeding in patients with ICH due to its effective prophylactic effect without increasing the risk of nosocomial pneumonia, but it did not reduce the 1-month mortality or ICU stay. Further evaluation of high-dose omeprazole as the drug of choice for patients presenting with UGI bleeding is warranted. Clinical trial registration no.: ChiCTR-TRC-12001871, registered at the Chinese clinical trial registry (http://www.chictr.org/en/proj/show.aspx?proj=2384).

Gastrointestinal prophylaxis in neurocritical care

The aim of this study is to review and summarize the relevant literature regarding pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic methods of prophylaxis against gastrointestinal (GI) stress ulceration, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Stress ulcers are a known complication of a variety of critical illnesses. The literature regarding epidemiology and management of stress ulcers and complications thereof, is vast and mostly encompasses patients in medical and surgical intensive care units. This article aims to extrapolate meaningful data for use with a population of critically ill neurologic and neurosurgical patients in the neurological intensive care unit setting. Studies were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials and NLM PubMed for English articles dealing with an adult population. We also scanned bibliographies of relevant studies. The results show that H(2)A, sucralfate, and PPI all reduce the incidence of UGIB in neurocritically ill patients, but H(2)A blockers may cause encephalopathy and interact with anticonvulsant drugs, and have been associated with higher rates of nosocomial pneumonias, but causation remains unproven and controversial. For these reasons, we advocate against routine use of H(2)A for GI prophylaxis in neurocritical patients. There is a paucity of high-level evidence studies that apply to the neurocritical care population. From this study, it is concluded that stress ulcer prophylaxis among critically ill neurologic and neurosurgical patients is important in preventing ulcer-related GI hemorrhage that contributes to both morbidity and mortality. Further, prospective trials are needed to elucidate which methods of prophylaxis are most appropriate and efficacious for specific illnesses in this population.

Proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been shown to reduce stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB), yet randomized controlled trials assessing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have yielded conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PPIs vs. H2RAs in the prophylaxis of SRMB in critically ill adults with risk factors for bleeding.

METHODS

Tailored literature searches of the past four decades were conducted. Outcomes measured were the decreases in rates of clinically significant bleeding (B, primary outcome of the meta-analysis), nosocomial pneumonia (P), and mortality (M) (secondary outcomes). Study heterogeneity was sought and quantified. Results are reported as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight fully published randomized controlled trials and five abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Prophylactic PPI administration significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding (N = 1,587 patients, OR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.17-0.54), number needed to treat = 39; 95% CI: 21-303 with no observed statistical heterogeneity among the relevant comparisons (P = 0.93, I2 = 0.0%). No statistical differences were noted for the development of nosocomial pneumonia (n = 7, N = 1,017 patients, OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.69-1.62) or mortality (n = 8, N = 1,260 patients, OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.84-1.68) or (and no heterogeneity was found for either: P = 0.85, I2 = 0.0%, and P = 0.96, I2 = 0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients at risk for the development of SRMB, PPI prophylaxis significantly decreased rates of clinically significant bleeding compared with H2RA, without affecting the development of nosocomial pneumonia or mortality rates. The magnitude of the beneficial effect, and its clinical relevance, now requires further characterization using cost-effectiveness analysis considering the incidence of stress-related mucosal disease-related bleeding.

Mitigating endoplasmic reticulum stress with revaprazan ameliorates stress-related mucosal disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The term "stress-related mucosal disease" (SRMD) represents conditions ranging from superficial mucosal damage to focal deep mucosal damage in the stomach, of which pathogenesis is deduced to be violent mucosal ischemia or excess oxidative stress, but not fully clarified yet. Under the hypothesis that mucosal cell apoptosis subsequent to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress might play a crucial role, we evaluated the efficacy and mechanism that novel acid pump antagonist (APA), revaprazan, alleviated water immersion restraint stress (WIRS) induced SRMD in rats.

METHODS

In order to define whether WIRS-induced SRMD is associated with ER stress, we checked the alteration in the expression of ER stress markers including GRP78, CHOP, XBP-1, BiP as well as apoptosis in WIRS-induced SRMD. The efficacy of revaprazan on either alleviating ER stress or attenuating SRMD was compared with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and gastroprotectant.

RESULTS

Ten hours of WIRS induced a severe degree of SRMD, in which ER stress markers including CHOP, XBP1, and BiP were significantly overexpressed in the gastric tissues. However, these markers of ER stress were significantly decreased in the group pretreated with revaprazan compared to PPI or gastroprotectant, accompanied with a significant reduction in apoptotic index. In addition to ER stress, revaprazan imposed anti-inflammatory benefit to limit SRMD based on significant levels of inflammatory cell apoptosis.

CONCLUSION

Endoplasmic reticulum stress accompanied with drastic apoptosis was implicated in the development of SRMD, but revaprazan could rescue the stomach from SRMD through alleviating ER stress in epithelial cells much better than either PPI or gastroprotectant.