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

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024

The 2024 revised edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG 2024) is published by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine. This is the fourth revision since the first edition was published in 2012. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist healthcare providers in making appropriate decisions in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock, leading to improved patient outcomes. We aimed to create guidelines that are easy to understand and use for physicians who recognize sepsis and provide initial management, specialized physicians who take over the treatment, and multidisciplinary healthcare providers, including nurses, physical therapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists. The J-SSCG 2024 covers the following nine areas: diagnosis of sepsis and source control, antimicrobial therapy, initial resuscitation, blood purification, disseminated intravascular coagulation, adjunctive therapy, post-intensive care syndrome, patient and family care, and pediatrics. In these areas, we extracted 78 important clinical issues. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 42 GRADE-based recommendations, 7 good practice statements, and 22 information-to-background questions were created as responses to clinical questions. We also described 12 future research questions.

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.

Appropriateness and inappropriate medication predictors of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

Introduction

Preventive drugs for stress ulcers are widely and unreasonably used in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). This study aims to examine the appropriate utilization of medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) and identify factors that contribute to the inappropriate use of these medications in the ICU of the Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University.

Methods

Patient cases admitted to the ICU during the period from May 2022 to May 2023 were extracted from the hospital's information management system. Single-factor analysis and multivariate logistic regression model analysis were performed using the SPSS to identify factors associated with inappropriate medication for prophylaxis. The efficacy of this predictive model was assessed through the use of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC), while the Hosmer test was utilized to evaluate the model fit.

Results

This study included a total of 651 patient cases that met the inclusion criteria. Among these cases, 48.39% were found to have received inappropriate medication of SUP. The analysis revealed a significant association between inappropriate medication and partial transfer to departments (P < 0.05), as well as the use of anticoagulants (P = 0.009) in the prophylaxis group. In the non-prophylaxis group, the multifactorial logistic analysis indicated a significant correlation between inadequate prescriptions and partial transfer to departments (P < 0.05), as well as the presence of artificial airways (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

There is a notable prevalence of inappropriate SUP in the ICU of this hospital. Attention should be paid to the SUP of some patients transferred to the department, the use of anticoagulants and the presence of artificial airway.

Rates of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Deprescribing in Children Receiving Usual versus High-Dose Corticosteroids in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit with Status Asthmaticus

Purpose: To compare deprescribing rates of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) between children receiving "usual-dose" (<4 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone equivalents) versus "high-dose" (≥4 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone equivalents) corticosteroids for status asthmaticus in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Methods: This retrospective, cohort study included children <18 years of age receiving corticosteroids for status asthmaticus and SUP from 1/1/2017 to 6/31/2022. The primary objective was to compare the number of children that were deprescribed SUP following transition from the PICU to the floor and at hospital discharge between groups. Secondary objectives included a comparison of SUP-associated adverse events (ADEs) (pneumonia, Clostridium difficile colitis, thrombocytopenia, necrotizing enterocolitis) between groups. Comparisons were performed using exact χ2 test or Wilcoxon U-tests as appropriate, with a P value <.05. Results: Ninety-six patients received usual-dose and 57 received high-dose corticosteroids. Eighteen (11.8%) patients were transferred within 24 hours of PICU admission and started on SUP on the floor. Thirteen (8.5%) patients were discharged home from the PICU. The remaining 122 (79.7%) patients were transferred from PICU to the floor and there was no statistical difference for continuation of SUP on the floor between usual-dose versus high-dose group, 58 (76.3%) versus 31 (67.4%) patients, P = .282. Overall, 25 of 153 (16.3%) patients were discharged home on SUP, but there was no difference between groups. SUP-associated ADEs did not differ between groups. Conclusions: SUP continuation during transitions of care in this cohort was common. Assessment of SUP continuation is needed during transitions of care to promote SUP stewardship and limit risk of SUP-associated ADEs.

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

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Counter measures to minimise this risk include the use of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). The effect of enteral nutrition as SUP on GI bleeding event rates is unknown. There are conflicting data describing the effect of co-administration of enteral nutrition with pharmacological SUP, and there is substantial variation in practice. We aim to conduct an exploratory post hoc analysis to evaluate the association of enteral nutrition with clinically important GI bleed rates in ICU patients included in the SUP-ICU trial, and to explore any interactions between enteral nutrition and pharmacologic SUP on patient outcomes. The SUP-ICU trial dataset will be used to assess if enteral nutrition is associated with the outcomes of interest. Extended Cox models will be used considering relevant competing events, including treatment allocation (SUP or placebo) and enteral nutrition as a daily time-varying covariate, with additional adjustment for severity of illness (SAPS II). Results will be presented as adjusted hazard ratios for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition, and for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition considering potential interactions with the other variable, all with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the tests of interaction. All results will be considered as exploratory only. This post hoc analysis may yield important insights to guide practice and inform the design of future randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of enteral nutrition on GI bleeding.

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.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis drug regimentation in surgical patients

OBJECTIVES

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that more than 50% of drugs were prescribed incorrectly, including stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) drugs. Prescribing SUP drugs in incorrect doses and frequencies are considered irrational, and may affects to the effectivity of the therapy. This research aimed to assess the appropriateness of the SUP drugs regimentation in the inpatient surgery room at Dr. Soetomo Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia.

METHODS

This research was cross-sectional study and conducted for 4 weeks in 2019 in the inpatient surgery room of Dr. Soetomo Hospital. The population was SUP drugs that were prescribed in inpatient surgery room. Those SUP drugs with indications for the prevention of stress-induced ulcers that complied to the terms listed on the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) were included as the samples, and vice versa. The samples then assessed for their regimentation appropriateness using the dose and frequency standard of ASHP.

RESULTS

There were 224 dose units taken as sample, from the total population of 1,404 SUP drugs. The result showed that as much as 48.2% of SUP medications were given to the patients in inappropriate regimentation. Of that number, all ranitidine injection were inappropriately regimented. On the contrary all omeprazole injection dose units were appropriately regimented, meanwhile the amount of appropriate regimentation of sucralfate suspension were 74.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

According to ASHP standard, the SUP drugs in the inpatient surgery room at Dr. Soetomo Hospital were mostly given in inappropriate regimentation. Further research is needed to explore how will those inappropriate regimentation affect on the efficacy of therapy in the patients.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

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.

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.

Enteral nutrition better than proton pump inhibitors?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically-ill patients has been a subject of extensive research, with multiple clinical trials attempting to study the best method of stress ulcer prophylaxis with the least adverse effects. Until recently, pharmacologic prophylaxis has prevailed as the primary choice for the prevention of stress ulcers but recent clinical studies have attempted to evaluate the role of enteral nutrition in stress ulcer prophylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of stress ulcers that result in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGIB) has drastically decreased over the last two decades. Furthermore, in the current era CIGB in the ICU does not seem to be associated with an increased mortality. Multiple recent clinical studies aimed to evaluate the role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients who tolerate enteral nutrition in the ICU.

SUMMARY

The results of multiple recent clinical studies call for re-evaluation of the routine use of PPIs in critically ill patients who tolerates enteral nutrition in the ICU. Despite the promising preliminary results, definitive recommendations need larger clinical trials that are powered to evaluate any added benefits of using PPI in critically ill patients who tolerate enteral nutrition given the low incidence of CIGB in the current era.

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 with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.

Methods

Literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42–0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31–0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23–1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44–0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16–2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12–3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25–0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22–0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.04–2.09).

Conclusions

SUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

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.