Risk factors for clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Current Standards and Practices in Small Animal Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving intervention that is used in small animals to manage a variety of conditions. Broad indications for MV include severe hypoxemia, severe hypercapnia, and an increase in work of breathing. MV requires intensive monitoring in the ICU and a thorough knowledge of the available modes of ventilation. Nursing care is a vital component of management of these uniquely fragile patients. Ultimately, successful weaning from ventilator support in veterinary patients depends on the underlying disease process, with patients with nonpulmonary diseases generally having a more favorable prognosis than patients with primary pulmonary parenchymal disease.

Does enteral nutrition protect against stress ulceration in the critically ill?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) due to stress ulceration. Strategies to reduce the risk include administration of prophylactic ulcer healing medications. Enteral nutrition (EN) may be favourably associated with GIB risks. This manuscript summarizes available evidence regarding EN effects on GIB.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are few data available to directly compare the effect of EN on GIB. Direct comparison in animal models generally indicate a beneficial effect. Human data provide indirect evidence from pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis studies. EN exposure has been randomized in nutrition trials of critically ill patients, but GIB outcomes were not recorded. Detailed EN exposure data were recorded in two large pharmacological stress ulcer trials. One finds EN is associated with lower GIB, lower mortality, and increased pneumonia, and notes a possible interaction between EN and pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis. The second has yet to report associations with EN.

SUMMARY

EN may reduce the risk of GIB, although robust direct evidence is absent. Potential interactions between EN and pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis require further study.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.

RESULTS

We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.

Hemorrhages and risk factors in patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis in a respiratory critical care unit: a secondary data analysis of a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To verify whether the bleeding risk assessment guidelines from the 9th American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) are prognostic for respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) patients and to explore risk factors for hemorrhages, we conducted a secondary data analysis based on our previously published cohort study of venous thromboembolism.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a secondary data analysis on the single-center prospective cohort from our previous study. Patients admitted to the RICU at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital from August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 were included and followed up until discharge.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 931 patients, of which 715 (76.8%) were at high risk of bleeding, while the remaining were at low risk. Of the total, 9.2% (86/931) suffered major bleeding, and no significant difference was found between the two risk groups (p = 0.601). High-risk patients had poor outcomes, including higher mortality and longer stays. Independent risk factors for major bleeding were APACHE II score ≥ 15; invasive pulmonary aspergillosis; therapeutic dose of anticoagulants; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood transfusion not related to bleeding appeared to be an independent protective factor for major bleeding (OR 0.099, 95% CI 0.045-0.218, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Bleeding risk assessment models from the 9th ACCP guidelines may not be suitable for patients in RICU. Building a bleeding risk assessment model that is suitable for patients in all RICUs remains a challenge. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.

Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP-ICU trial: Results of exploratory post hoc analyses

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition may affect risks of gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients and may also modify the effects of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis. We undertook post hoc analyses of the stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial to assess for any associations and interactions between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole.

METHODS

Extended Cox models with time-varying co-variates and competing events were used to assess potential associations, adjusted for baseline severity of illness. Potential interactions between daily enteral nutrition and allocation to pantoprazole on outcomes were similarly assessed.

RESULTS

Enteral nutrition was associated with lower risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.19-0.44, p < .001), higher risk of pneumonia (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82, p = .003), and lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.18-0.27, p < .001). Enteral nutrition with allocation to pantoprazole was associated with a lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.35, p < .001), similar to enteral nutrition with allocation to placebo (HR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.13-0.23, p < .001). Allocation to pantoprazole with no enteral nutrition had little effect on mortality (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63-1.09, p = .179), whilst allocation to pantoprazole and receipt of enteral nutrition was mostly compatible with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.99-1.64, p = .061). The test of interaction between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole treatment allocation for all-cause mortality was statistically significant (p = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Enteral nutrition was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia and a reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The interaction between pantoprazole and enteral nutrition suggesting an increased risk of mortality requires further study.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Guideline for the Prevention of Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Adults

RATIONALE

Critically ill adults can develop stress-related mucosal damage from gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and reperfusion injury, predisposing them to clinically important stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of UGIB in adults in the ICU.

DESIGN

A multiprofessional panel of 18 international experts from dietetics, critical care medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, and two methodologists developed evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guideline development including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

The panel members identified and formulated 13 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and then assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Good practice statements were included to provide additional guidance.

RESULTS

The panel generated nine conditional recommendations and made four good practice statements. Factors that likely increase the risk for clinically important stress-related UGIB in critically ill adults include coagulopathy, shock, and chronic liver disease. There is no firm evidence for mechanical ventilation alone being a risk factor. Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk. All critically ill adults with factors that likely increase the risk for stress-related UGIB should receive either proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, at low dosage regimens, to prevent UGIB. Prophylaxis should be discontinued when critical illness is no longer evident or the risk factor(s) is no longer present despite ongoing critical illness. Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU is necessary to prevent inappropriate prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline panel achieved consensus regarding the recommendations for the prevention of stress-related UGIB. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study

BACKGROUND

Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.

Principles of minimize bleeding and the transfusion of blood and its components in operated patients - surgical aspects

One of the target of perioperative tratment in surgery is decreasing intraoperative bleeding, which increases the number of perioperative procedures, mortality and treatment costs, and also causes the risk of transfusion of blood and its components. Trying to minimize the blood loss(mainly during the operation) as well as the need to transfuse blood and its components (broadly understood perioperative period) should be standard treatment for a patient undergoing a procedure. In the case of this method, the following steps should be taken: 1) in the preoperative period: identyfication of risk groups as quickly as possible, detecting and treating anemia, applying prehabilitation, modyfying anticoagulant treatment, considering donating one's own blood in some patients and in selected cases erythropoietin preparations; 2) in the perioperative period: aim for normothermia, normovolemia and normoglycemia, use of surgical methods that reduce bleeding, such as minimally invasive surgery, high-energy coagulation, local hemostatics, prevention of surgical site infection, proper transfusion of blood and its components if it occurs; 3) in the postoperative period: monitor the condition of patients, primarily for the detection of bleeding, rapid reoperation if required, suplementation (oral administration preferred) nutrition with microelements (iron) and vitamins, updating its general condition. All these activities, comprehensively and in surgical cooperation with the anesthesiologist, should reduce the blood loss and transfusion of blood and its components.

Impact of a multifaceted intervention on non-guideline-recommended prescribing of acid suppressive medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

To promote an effective strategy to improve the non-guideline-recommended prescribing (NGRP) of acid suppressive medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients and to evaluate the impact and barriers of a multifaceted intervention on NGRP in critically ill patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective, pre- post-intervention study was performed in the medical-surgical ICU. This study included pre-intervention and post-intervention period. There was no SUP guideline and intervention in the pre-intervention period. In the post-intervention period, the multifaceted intervention included five features: a practice guideline, an education campaign, medication review and recommendations, medication reconciliation, and pharmacist rounding with the ICU team.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients were studied (305 in the pre-intervention group and 252 in the post-intervention group). Patients who underwent surgery, stayed in ICU more than 7 days, or used corticosteroids experienced significantly higher rate of NGRP in the pre-intervention group. The average percentage of patient days of NGRP was significantly reduced from 44.2% to 23.5% (p < .001) by implementing the multifaceted intervention. The percentage of patients with NGRP decreased from 86.7% to 45.5% in terms of all 5 criteria (indication, dosage, IV to PO, duration, and ICU discharge; p = .003). Per-patient NGRP cost decreased from $45.1 (22.6, 93.0) to $11.3 (11.3, 45.1; p = .004). The main barrier influencing NGRP was the factors of the patient, including the concurrent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the number of comorbidities, and undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSION

The multifaceted intervention was effective in improving NGRP. Further studies are needed to confirm whether our strategy is cost-effective.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis for Critical Asthma

BACKGROUND

Children hospitalized for critical asthma (CA) in the pediatric ICU (PICU) are commonly prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) to mitigate risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We sought to describe trends for SUP prescribing and explore for differences in rates of GI bleeding, gastritis, and SUP-related complications for those with and without SUP exposure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter cohort study using the Pediatric Hospital Information System registry among 42 children's hospitals from 2010 to 2019 including children 3 to 17 years of age admitted to the PICU for CA. Primary outcomes were chronologic and regional variation in SUP prescribing assessed by Joinpoint regression and Pearson's correlation. Rates of GI bleeding, gastritis, enteric ulceration, and SUP-related complications (C. difficile colitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and thrombocytopenia) were compared for those with and without SUP exposure.

RESULTS

Of 30 177 children studied, 10 387 (34.4%) received SUP. No episodes of GI bleeding were recorded. One subject developed gastric ulceration and 32 (0.1%) gastritis. Linear trends for SUP were observed with rates increasing from 25.5% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2019 (+1.9% annually). Prescribing varied by institution (range: 5.5% to 97.2%) without correlation to admission volumes. Extremely rare rates of SUP-related complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Although children hospitalized for CA routinely receive SUP, no episodes of GI bleeding were noted over a 10-year period. SUP solely for corticosteroid exposure may be unwarranted. We advocate for a targeted approach to SUP considering alternative risk factors for GI bleeding.

Erythrocyte degradation, metabolism, secretion, and communication with immune cells in the blood during sepsis: A review

Sepsis is a health issue that affects millions of people worldwide. It was assumed that erythrocytes were affected by sepsis. However, in recent years, a number of studies have shown that erythrocytes affect sepsis as well. When a pathogen invades the human body, it infects the blood and organs, causing infection and sepsis-related symptoms. Pathogens change the internal environment, increasing the levels of reactive oxygen species, influencing erythrocyte morphology, and causing erythrocyte death, i.e., eryptosis. Characteristics of eryptosis include cell shrinkage, membrane blebbing, and surface exposure of phosphatidylserine (PS). Eryptotic erythrocytes increase immune cell proliferation, and through PS, attract macrophages that remove the infected erythrocytes. Erythrocyte-degraded hemoglobin derivatives and heme deteriorate infection; however, they could also be metabolized to a series of derivatives. The result that erythrocytes play an anti-infection role during sepsis provides new perspectives for treatment. This review focuses on erythrocytes during pathogenic infection and sepsis.

Bleeding and thrombotic events in adults supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an ELSO registry analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed at analyzing the prevalence, mortality association, and risk factors for bleeding and thrombosis events (BTEs) among adults supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO).

METHODS

We queried the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry for adults supported with VV-ECMO from 2010 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to assess the association between BTEs and in-hospital mortality and the predictors of BTEs.

RESULTS

Among 7579 VV-ECMO patients meeting criteria, 40.2% experienced ≥ 1 BTE. Thrombotic events comprised 54.9% of all BTEs and were predominantly ECMO circuit thrombosis. BTE rates decreased significantly over the study period (p < 0.001). The inpatient mortality rate was 34.9%. Bleeding events (1.69 [1.49-1.93]) were more strongly associated with in-hospital mortality than thrombotic events (1.23 [1.08-1.41]) p < 0.01 for both. The BTEs most strongly associated with mortality were ischemic stroke (4.50 [2.55-7.97]) and medical bleeding, including intracranial (5.71 [4.02-8.09]), pulmonary (2.02 [1.54-2.67]), and gastrointestinal (1.54 [1.2-1.98]) hemorrhage, all p < 0.01. Risk factors for bleeding included acute kidney injury and pre-ECMO vasopressor support and for thrombosis were higher weight, multisite cannulation, pre-ECMO arrest, and higher PaCO₂ at ECMO initiation. Longer time on ECMO, younger age, higher pH, and earlier year of support were associated with bleeding and thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although decreasing over time, BTEs remain common during VV-ECMO and have a strong, cumulative association with in-hospital mortality. Thrombotic events are more frequent, but bleeding carries a higher risk of inpatient mortality. Differential risk factors for bleeding and thrombotic complications exist, raising the possibility of a tailored approach to VV-ECMO management.

Prophylactic use of acid suppressants in adult acutely ill hospitalised patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Acutely ill patients are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and prophylactic acid suppressants are frequently used. In this systematic review, we assessed the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalised patients.

METHODS

We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically important GI bleeding and serious adverse events (SAEs). The primary analyses included overall low risk of bias trials.

RESULTS

We included 65 comparisons from 62 trials (n = 9713); 43 comparisons were from intensive care units. Only three trials (n = 3596) had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90 to 1.18; high certainty). The rate of clinically important GI bleeding was lower with SUP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; TSA-adjusted CI 0.14 to 2.81; moderate certainty). We did not find a difference in pneumonia rates (moderate certainty). Effects on SAEs, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischaemia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were inconclusive due to sparse data. Analyses of all trials regardless of risk of bias were consistent with the primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a difference in all-cause mortality or pneumonia with SUP. The incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was reduced with SUP, whereas any effects on SAEs, myocardial ischaemia, Clostridium difficile enteritis and HRQoL were inconclusive.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017055676; published study protocol: Marker, et al 2017 in Systematic Reviews.

Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

DESIGN

A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

METHODS

The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

RESULTS

The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Time to onset of gastrointestinal bleeding in the SUP-ICU trial: A pre-planned substudy

BACKGROUND

The aetiology and risk factors for clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) in adult ICU patients may differ according to the onset of CIB, which could affect the balance between benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP).

METHODS

We assessed the time to CIB in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial. We assessed if associations between baseline characteristics including allocation to SUP and CIB changed during time in the ICU, specifically in the later (after day 2) compared to the earlier (first 2 days) period, using Cox models adjusted for SAPS II and allocation to SUP. Additionally, we described baseline characteristics and CIB episodes stratified by earlier/later/no CIB and 90-day mortality status.

RESULTS

Clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 110/3291 (3.3%) patients after a median of 6 (interquartile range 2-13) days; 25.5% of the episodes occurred early. Higher SAPS II was consistently associated with increased risk of CIB (hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.05 in the earlier period vs HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03 in the later period; P = .37); university hospital admission was associated with decreased risk of earlier CIB (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.63); this significantly increased in the later period (to HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53-1.37; P = .02). Patients with later compared to earlier CIB received more transfusions and had more diagnostic/therapeutic procedures for CIB.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding mostly occurred more than 2 days after randomization. University hospital admission was associated with significantly decreased risk of CIB in the earlier period only.

The effect of systemic corticosteroids on the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of systemic corticosteroids on the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in adult critically ill patients.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised clinical trials comparing systemic corticosteroids administered for more than 24 h with placebo/no treatment in adult critically ill patients. Trial selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess the risk of random errors and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding within 90 days. The secondary outcome was the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding of any severity within 90 days.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (n = 14,615) reported data for the primary outcome and 55 trials (n = 21,792) for the secondary outcome. The pooled incidence of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding was 2.3% in the corticosteroid group and 1.8% in the control group (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57; I² = 0%, TSA-adjusted CI 0.51-3.14). We observed no difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding of any severity (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.32; I² = 0%, TSA-adjusted CI 0.87-1.38). The GRADE quality of evidence was low (risk of bias and imprecision).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an overall low incidence of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding among adult critically ill patients. Corticosteroids may slightly increase the incidence of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, but not bleeding of any severity. Rarity of events, infrequent trial reporting and high risk of bias reduced the quality of evidence.

The SUP-ICU Trial: Does It Confirm or Condemn the Practice of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis?

Purpose: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is routinely administered to critically ill patients for the prevention of stress ulcer-induced, clinically important bleeding (CIB). Recently, the value of SUP has been questioned due to the perceived decline in CIB and the potential for infectious complications secondary to acid suppressive therapy. The SUP-ICU trial is a large, randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous pantoprazole with placebo for the indication of SUP. It is hoped that this trial would answer many of the questions pertaining to the overall value of SUP. This article will provide an in-depth assessment of the SUP-ICU trial in the context of the overall body of literature in this area. Furthermore, applications for clinical practice and recommendations on the provision of SUP are provided. Summary: The SUP-ICU trial revealed no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day mortality with pantoprazole but lower rates of CIB were noted (which was a secondary outcome). Overall, these data provide important insight into the value of SUP along with other questions related to the provision of SUP such as the relationship between CIB and mortality, infectious complications, and enteral nutrition. Conclusions: The SUP-ICU trial is a landmark trial describing the value of SUP in a modern-day setting of intensive care unit (ICU) practice. The provision of SUP should be continued in high-risk patients. Future studies are ongoing that will add further insight to this routine practice.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in children with status asthmaticus receiving systemic corticosteroids: a descriptive study assessing frequency of clinically important bleeding

Objective: To determine the frequency of clinically important bleeding (CIB) among children hospitalized for status asthmaticus with and without exposure to stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP).Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort in 217 children admitted for asthma exacerbation aged 5-18 years from May 2015 to May 2017. We assessed cohorts with and without exposure to SUP to determine if differences in frequency of CIB exist. Study outcomes included frequency of CIB, gastrointestinal complications (occult bleeding, macroscopic bleeding, gastric perforation, and acquired gastritis), and SUP-related adverse events (ventilator associated pneumonia, C. difficile colitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and acute thrombocytopenia).Results: Ninety-two (42%) children received SUP of which 82 were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). There were no differences in asthma severity or known risk factors for CIB in children with and without SUP in the PICU subcohort. We observed no CIB or SUP-related adverse events. Two subjects acquired gastritis in the no-SUP cohort and one additional subject experienced occult gastrointestinal bleeding with spontaneous symptom resolution.Conclusion: Children admitted for status asthmaticus with and without SUP had no observed incidence of CIB. In this specific population, we propose a prerequisite assessment for the presence of known stress ulcer related gastrointestinal bleeding risk factors prior to the blanket administration of SUP.

Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing stress ulcers in the upper digestive tract. Agents that suppress gastric acid are commonly prescribed to reduce the incidence of clinically important stress ulcer-related gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the indiscriminate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in all patients admitted to the intensive care unit is not warranted and can have potential adverse clinical effects and cost implications. The present guidelines from the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos summarizes the current evidence and gives six clinical statements and an algorithm aiming to provide a standardized prescribing policy for the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear.

METHODS

In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).

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.

Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill adults: Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients. However, their use may increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, which is associated with morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, we aim to assess whether continued administration of corticosteroids for >24 hours increases the rate of GI bleeding in adult critically ill patients compared to placebo or no treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. The participants will be adult (as defined in the included trials) critically ill patients. The intervention will be any corticosteroid administered systematically for >24 hours and the comparator will be placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome will be rate of clinically important GI bleeding. We will systematically search EMBASE, MEDLINE, Medline In-Process, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and trial registries for relevant literature, as well as perform a hand search. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

The risk of GI bleeding in adult critically ill patients treated with corticosteroids is unknown. Hence, there is need for a robust systematic review to assess this risk and provide clinicians with a clearer understanding of the strength and limitations of existing data.

Timing of onset of gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: Protocol for a preplanned observational study

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, but clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding is rare. The majority of intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), despite uncertainty concerning the balance between benefit and harm. For approximately half of ICU patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, onset is early, ie within the first two days of the ICU stay. The aetiology of gastrointestinal bleeding and consequently the balance between benefit and harm of SUP may differ between patients with early vs late gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a preplanned exploratory substudy of the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) randomized clinical trial, comparing intravenous pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) with placebo in 3350 acutely ill adult ICU patients. We will describe baseline characteristics and assess the time to onset of the first clinically important episode of GI bleeding accounting for survival status and allocation to SUP or placebo. In addition, we will describe differences in therapeutic and diagnostic procedures used in patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding according to early vs late bleeding and 90-day vital status.

CONCLUSIONS

The study outlined in this protocol will provide detailed information on patient characteristics and the timing of onset of gastrointestinal bleeding in the patients enrolled in the SUP-ICU trial. This may provide additional knowledge and incentives for future studies on which patients benefit from SUP.

Sepsis as an important risk factor for gastrointestinal bleeding in acute coronary syndrome patients: Two case reports

RATIONALE

Sepsis is a common stressor that may decrease microcirculation in the gastrointestinal tract in patients and increase the gastrointestinal bleeding risk of stress-related mucosal disease. However, the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) bleeding risk score, recommended by authoritative guidelines for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), does not include sepsis as a bleeding risk factor.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The 2 cases were about ACS with hemorrhagic complications. The first patient was an 88-year-old man with hypertension, gallstones, hepatic cysts, and chest pain; the second one was a 79-year-old man with chest pain and hypertension. These 2 ACS patients had no bleeding on admission; however, both patients suffered apparent gastrointestinal bleeding immediately after the development of sepsis or severe sepsis.

DIAGNOSES

Both patients were diagnosed as ACS with sepsis.

INTERVENTIONS

The first ACS patient had no use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for prophylaxis prior to the diagnosis of sepsis. The second one was administered PPIs at standard oral doses.

OUTCOMES

The first patient suffered from gastrointestinal bleeding immediately after the onset of sepsis. And oral PPIs failed to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding for the second patient, when severe sepsis developed. However, the second patient's gastrointestinal hemorrhage gradually stopped immediately after high doses of PPIs were administered intravenously, rather than orally. When sepsis developed again, the second patient also had no recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding under the protection of PPIs at standard oral doses.

LESSONS

Our report suggests that sepsis may be an important bleeding risk factor for ACS patients, and the reasonable use of PPIs to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding could be vital for ACS patients complicated with sepsis.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult intensive care unit patients - a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In the intensive care unit (ICU), stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2-receptor antagonists is standard of care although gastrointestinal bleeding remains uncommon. It remains unknown whether its use is associated with benefits or harms and the quality of evidence supporting the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis has been questioned. Accordingly, the objective of this systematic review was to critically assess the evidence from randomized clinical trials on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis vs. placebo or no prophylaxis in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

We will systematically search for randomized clinical trials in major international databases. Two authors will independently screen and select trials for inclusion, extract data and assess the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will perform conventional meta-analyses using Review Manager, and STATA 15, and we will assess the risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis. Also, we will assess and report the overall quality of evidence for all outcomes according to GRADE.

DISCUSSION

The evidence on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult ICU patients is unclear and an updated systematic review is warranted as new trials have been published. To control risks of systematic and random errors, we will use Cochrane and GRADE methodology and Trial Sequential Analysis. Our ambition with this systematic review is to provide updated, reliable and precise data to better inform decision makers on the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult ICU patients.

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.

Effect of sucralfate on gastric permeability in an ex vivo model of stress-related mucosal disease in dogs

BACKGROUND

Sucralfate is a gastroprotectant with no known systemic effects. The efficacy of sucralfate for prevention and treatment of stress-related mucosal diseases (SRMD) in dogs is unknown.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES

To develop a canine ex vivo model of SRMD and to determine the effect of sucralfate on mucosal barrier function in this model.

ANIMALS

Gastric antral mucosa was collected immediately postmortem from 29 random-source apparently healthy dogs euthanized at a local animal control facility.

METHODS

Randomized experimental trial. Sucralfate (100 mg/mL) was applied to ex vivo canine gastric mucosa concurrent with and after acid injury. Barrier function was assessed by measurement of transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) and radiolabeled mannitol flux.

RESULTS

Application of acidified Ringers solution to the mucosal side of gastric antrum caused a reduction in gastric barrier function, and washout of acidified Ringers solution allowed recovery of barrier function (TER: 34.0 ± 2.8% of control at maximum injury, 71.3 ± 5.5% at recovery, P < .001). Sucralfate application at the time of injury or after injury significantly hastened recovery of barrier function (TER: 118.0 ± 15.2% of control at maximum injury, P < .001 and 111.0 ± 15.5% at recovery, P = .35).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Sucralfate appeared effective at restoring defects in gastric barrier function induced by acid and accelerating repair of tissues subjected to acid in this model, suggesting that sucralfate could have utility for the treatment and prevention of SRMD in dogs.

Extended Daily Dialysis vs. Continuous Hemodialysis for ICU Patients with Acute Renal Failure: A Two-Year Single Center Report

Extended daily dialysis (EDD) is an easily implemented alternative to continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Since EDD offers most of the advantages of CRRT, we sought to compare the effectiveness of these two modalities. In this 2-year study, 54 ICU patients with ARF were treated with either continuous hemodialysis (CHD) or EDD. Oliguria was present in 64% of patients who received CHD vs. 73% of EDD patients (p=NS) while 93% of CHD and 81% of EDD patients required mechanical ventilation (p=NS). Patients treated with EDD were younger than those who received CHD (47.0 ± 12.6 vs. 56.7 ± 13.7, p=0.009), but there were no significant differences in gender or mean APACHE II scores at the time of randomization. Mean arterial blood pressures measured during treatment were maintained between 70 and 80 mmHg for both EDD and CHD and average daily serum electrolyte levels fell within normal ranges for EDD and CHD. Average daily fluid input and output were 5.8 ± 3.3L and 6.0 ± 3.2 L for CHD vs. 3.3 ± 2.6 and 3.0 ± 1.7 L for EDD after exclusion of data from 2 burn patients. Hourly heparin anticoagulation rates were 1080 U/hour for CHD and 643 U/hour for EDD, p=0.02. Anticoagulation-free treatments were performed during 43% of all EDD treatments vs. 21% of all CHD treatments, p<0.001. Clotting of the dialyzer or circuit occurred at least once during 51% of all CHD treatment days vs. 22% of EDD treatments (p<0.001). We conclude that EDD is a safe, effective alternative to CRRT that offers comparable hemodynamic stability and excellent small solute control.

Surgical Critical Care: Gastrointestinal Complications

Critical illness and injury affect the gastrointestinal tract almost uniformly. Complications include the sequelae of direct intestinal injury and repair, impaired motility, intra-abdominal hypertension, and ulceration, among others. Contemporary clinical practice has incorporated many advances in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal complications during critical illness. This article discusses the epidemiology, risk factors, means of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of some of these compilations.

Enteral nutrition as stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled exploratory study

PURPOSE

We investigated whether early enteral nutrition alone may be sufficient prophylaxis against stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, exploratory study that included mechanically ventilated patients in medical ICUs of two academic hospitals. Intravenous pantoprazole and early enteral nutrition were compared to placebo and early enteral nutrition as stress-ulcer prophylaxis. The incidences of clinically significant and overt GI bleeding were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

124 patients were enrolled in the study. After exclusion of 22 patients, 102 patients were included in analysis: 55 patients in the treatment group and 47 patients in the placebo group. Two patients (one from each group) showed signs of overt GI bleeding (overall incidence 1.96%), and both patients experienced a drop of >3 points in hematocrit in a 24-hour period indicating a clinically significant GI bleed. There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence of overt or significant GI bleeding between groups (p=0.99).

CONCLUSION

We found no benefit when pantoprazole is added to early enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The routine prescription of acid-suppressive therapy in critically ill patients who tolerate early enteral nutrition warrants further evaluation.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients-protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is considered standard of care in many critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the quality of evidence supporting this has recently been questioned, and clinical equipoise exists. Whether there is overall benefit or harm of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients is unknown. Accordingly, we aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding irrespective of hospital setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and assess use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in any dose, formulation and duration. We will accept placebo or no prophylaxis as control interventions. The participants will be adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Epistemonikos for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed, and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

There is a need for a high-quality systematic review to summarise the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalised patients to inform practice and future research. Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is used worldwide, no firm evidence for benefit or harm as compared to placebo or no treatments has been established. Critical illness is a continuum not limited to the ICU setting, which is why it is important to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a wider perspective than exclusively in ICU patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017055676.

Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines

Purpose

To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness.

Methods

We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined “early” EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds.

Results

We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion.

Conclusions

We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4665-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

When to Feed the Patient With Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Whether to provide artificial enteral nutrition therapy to a patient with evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) creates a difficult clinical dilemma. Concern that enteral feeding may contribute to the morbidity associated with GIB leads to delays in initiating enteral therapy or to cessation of feeding in the patient in whom artificial nutrition support has already been started. Surprisingly, evidence of GIB is not an automatic contraindication to further enteral feeding. Depending on the etiology of the GIB, enteral nutrition may protect the gut mucosa and reduce further bleeding in some patients, actually increase risk for rebleeding in other patients, or serve as a moot point with no relation to further bleeding or morbidity in still other patients. In many cases, an endoscopic evaluation is needed to distinguish the differential etiology of the GIB. The nutrition support specialist needs a full understanding of the physiology behind the varying diagnoses for GIB to know whether feedings can be initiated or continued or whether enteral feedings need to be withheld for 48-72 hours until risk for rebleeding and further morbidity is minimized.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is considered standard of care in the majority of critically ill patients in the ICU. In this review, we will present the current evidence for the use of SUP in ICU patients, including data on the prevalence of gastrointestinal bleeding and the balance between benefits and harms of SUP.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of overt gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients is in the area of 5%. Consistent risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding have been identified, but indications for SUP vary considerably. SUP is used in three out of four critically ill patients, most frequently in the form of proton pump inhibitors. A recent systematic review of SUP vs. placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients highlights the lack of evidence supporting the use of SUP. Importantly, data suggest potential harm, including increased risk of nosocomial infections and cardiovascular events.

SUMMARY

The prevalence of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients in the ICU is low, the prognostic importance is ambiguous, and SUP is widely used. The balance between benefits and harms of SUP is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists. High-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of SUP in ICU patients are highly warranted.

A Comparison of Histamine Receptor Antagonists Versus Proton Pump Inhibitor Gastrointestinal Ulcer Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplant Recipients

INTRODUCTION

There are several different agents that can be used for gastrointestinal (GI) ulcer prophylaxis in posttransplant recipients, such as histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study was conducted to compare the incidence of adverse kidney events in transplant recipients who received prophylaxis with H2RAs or PPIs.

DESIGN

This retrospective study included all kidney transplant recipients from 3 transplant centers who were transplanted in 2009 through 2011. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of adverse events posttransplant, defined as the incidence of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile, hip fractures, GI bleeding, cytomegalovirus, organ rejection, and bacteremia.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients were included in the study; of which 35 were included in the PPI group and 176 were included in the H2RA group. There were no significant differences between groups in regard to incidence of GI bleeding events or other adverse events.

DISCUSSION

These findings suggest there is a low incidence of GI ulcers and upper GI bleeding events after kidney transplantation with the use of H2RAs or PPIs. Additionally, there are similar rates of adverse events when comparing H2RAs versus PPIs for GI ulcer prophylaxis.

A Review of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis

Stress-related mucosal damage (SRMD) is an erosive process of the gastroduodenum that occurs frequently in critically ill patients. Symptomatic lesions may range from overt bleeding (by hematemesis, melena, bloody or coffee ground aspirates, or hematochezia) to clinically significant hemorrhage (hypotension, tachycardia, or acute anemia requiring transfusion). SRMD is caused by mucosal ischemia that produces an imbalance between injurious factors and the protective mechanisms. Common patient risk factors include mechanical ventilation, coagulopathy, shock, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, thermal injury, trauma, kidney or liver transplant, head injury or spinal cord injury, recent gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and pharmacologic interventions. Stress ulcer prophylaxis may be provided by administering one of the following pharmacologic agents: an antacid, a histamine2 receptor antagonist, sucralfate, or a proton pump inhibitor. All agents possess equal efficacies but differ in their mechanisms of action, adverse event profile, drug interactions, monitoring requirements, costs, and personnel requirements for preparation and administration. Implementation of institution-specific protocols for stress ulcer prophylaxis provides cost minimization by maximizing appropriate drug usage.

Anemia in Intensive Care: A Review of Current Concepts

Anemia in patients admitted to an intensive care unit is common and affects almost all critically ill patients. The intensivist is faced with the challenge of treating multifactorial etiologies, mainly bleeding and blood loss due to phlebotomy and decreased erythropoiesis. Red cell transfusion, the most common treatment for anemia, comes with associated risks, which may further reduce the chance of survival of these patients. The best evidence suggests the practice of restrictive RBC transfusion (transfusion at Hb<7 g/dl). In this article, the etiopathogenesis of the anemia in critically ill is reviewed, and current opinion on the pros and cons of various management strategies are discussed with emphasize on restrictive transfusion policy.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.