Prospective double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial on the use of ranitidine in preventing postoperative gastroduodenal complications in high-risk neurosurgical patients

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Postoperative bowel complications after non-shunt-related neurosurgical procedures: case series and review of the literature

Postoperative bowel complications after non-shunt-related neurosurgical procedures are relatively rare. In an effort to identify the primary risk factors, we evaluated postoperative bowel complications in cranial, endovascular, and spinal procedures in neurosurgery patients using our own institutional case series along with a literature review.We identified severe postoperative bowel complications that occurred at our institution after non-shunt-related neurosurgical procedures between July 2016 and December 2018. We also completed a systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE using search terms related to bowel complications.At our institution, 7 patients (average age 49.7 ± 9.5 years, range 34-60; no apparent sex predilection) had severe postoperative bowel complications after undergoing a total of 10 neurosurgical procedures. Diagnosis was on average 1 week postoperatively (range 5-13 days), and the time between radiographic/clinical diagnosis and either surgery or death was 1.3 ± 1.4 days (range 0-4 days). Bowel perforation occurred in 4 patients. Five of the patients died, 3 as a direct result of the bowel complication. In the literature review, we identified 6487 spine and 66 cranial and/or endovascular bowel complications after neurosurgical procedures.Our case series and literature review demonstrate that severe postoperative bowel complications after non-shunt-related neurosurgical procedures, while rare, carry significant morbidity/mortality despite prompt and aggressive management. These can also happen without direct injury to bowel tissue, instead occurring as sequelae of inflammatory processes, as well as from delayed mobility, extended use of opiate narcotics, and lack of standardized protocols to ensure early bowel movements that likely stems from unfamiliarity with this potentially devastating complication.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care

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

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

Most intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. We present updated evidence on the effects of prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo/no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of PPI/H2RA versus placebo/no prophylaxis on mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), myocardial ischemia, pneumonia, and Clostridium (Cl.) difficile enteritis in ICU patients.

RESULTS

We identified 42 trials randomising 6899 ICU patients; 3 had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on mortality [relative risk 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.94-1.14], but the occurrence of any GI bleeding was reduced as compared with placebo/no prophylaxis (0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77; TSA-adjusted CI 0.36-1.00). The conventional meta-analysis indicated that clinically important GI bleeding was reduced (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.81), but the TSA-adjusted CI 0.35-1.13 indicated lack of firm evidence. The effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis are uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review, we were able to refute a relative change of 20% of mortality. The occurrence of GI bleeding was reduced, but we lack firm evidence for a reduction in clinically important GI bleeding. The effects on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis remain inconclusive.

Re-evaluating the Utility of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Critically Ill Patient: A Clinical Scenario-Based Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Because recent studies have challenged the efficacy of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the critically ill patient, our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of SUP with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine₂ -receptor antagonists (H₂ RAs) against placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition alone in critically ill adults.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of 34 randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS

A total of 3220 critically ill adults who received PPIs or H₂ RAs versus placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A systematic review was performed using a random effects meta-analysis with TSA according to a predefined protocol. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs or H₂ RAs with either placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition alone were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and extracted data using Cochrane Collaborative methodology. The predefined primary outcomes were clinically important, overt, and any (clinically important plus overt) gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary outcomes included pneumonia, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), and mortality. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by PPI or H₂ RA use, intensive care unit (ICU) subtype, studies published after early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), the presence of risk factors for stress ulceration, and enteral nutrition use. Of the 34 trials included, 33 were judged as high risk of bias and 1 was judged as low risk. Use of SUP significantly reduced clinically important bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.76, p<0.001; I²  = 0%), overt bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.76, p=0.0003; I²  = 53%), and any bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.71, p<0.00001; I²  = 58%). TSA confirmed these findings. No significant differences in pneumonia, CDAD, or mortality were noted. Subgroup analyses revealed significant reductions in clinically important bleeding with SUP in neurosurgical patients (RR 0.37, p<0.05) but not in surgery/trauma or medical ICU patients with risk factors. SUP provided no benefit in studies published after EGDT. SUP significantly reduced clinically important bleeding regardless of the use of enteral nutrition (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that SUP use was associated with significant reductions in bleeding but not mortality. SUP should not be abandoned until large randomized trials demonstrate the futility of this intervention.

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.

Risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Neurocritical care patients are at high risk for stress-related upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in this patient group.

Methods

A systematic search of major electronic literature databases was conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers compared the effects of SUP (with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists) with placebo or no prophylaxis in neurocritical care patients. The primary outcome was UGI bleeding, and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and nosocomial pneumonia. Study heterogeneity was sought and quantified. The results were reported as risk ratios/relative risks (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

We included 8 RCTs comprising an aggregate of 829 neurocritical care patients. Among these trials, one study conducted in a non–intensive care unit setting that did not meet our inclusion criteria was ultimately included based on further evaluation. All studies were judged as having a high or unclear risk of bias. SUP was more effective than placebo or no prophylaxis at reducing UGI bleeding (random effects: RR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.20–0.47; P < 0.00001; I² = 45 %) and all-cause mortality (fixed effects: RR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.50–0.98; P = 0.04; I² = 0 %). There was no difference between SUP and placebo or no prophylaxis regarding nosocomial pneumonia (random effects: RR 1.14; 95 % CI 0.67–1.94; P = 0.62; I² = 42 %). The slight asymmetry of the funnel plots raised the concern of small trial bias, and apparent heterogeneity existed in participants, interventions, control treatments, and outcome measures.

Conclusions

In neurocritical care patients, SUP seems to be more effective than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing UGI bleeding and reducing all-cause mortality while not increasing the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by a lack of trials with a low risk of bias, sparse data, heterogeneity among trials, and a concern regarding small trial bias.

Trial registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) identifier: CRD42015015802. Date of registration: 6 Jan 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1107-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incidence of postoperative dyspepsia is not associated with prophylactic use of drugs

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Preoperative fasting guidelines do not recommend H2 receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors. This study investigated prophylactic use of gastric protection and the incidence of dyspeptic symptoms in the immediate postoperative period.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Non-randomized observational investigation in a post-anesthesia care unit.

METHODS

American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification ASAP1 and ASAP2 patients over 18 years of age were evaluated to identify dyspeptic symptoms during post-anesthesia care for up to 48 hours, after receiving or not receiving prophylactic gastric protection during anesthesia. History of dyspeptic symptoms and previous use of such medications were exclusion criteria. The odds ratio for incidence of dyspeptic symptoms with use of these medications was obtained.

RESULTS

This investigation studied 188 patients: 71% women; 50.5% ASAP1 patients. Most patients received general anesthesia (68%). Gastric protection was widely used (n = 164; 87.2%), comprising omeprazole (n = 126; 76.8%) or ranitidine (n = 38; 23.2%). Only a few patients did not receive any prophylaxis (n = 24; 12.8%). During the observation, 24 patients (12.8%) reported some dyspeptic symptoms but without any relationship with prophylaxis (relative risk, RR = 0.56; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.23-1.35; P = 0.17; number needed to treat, NNT = 11). Omeprazole, compared with ranitidine, did not reduce the chance of having symptoms (RR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.27-1.60; P = 0.26; NNT = 19).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that prophylactic use of proton pump inhibitors or H2 receptor antagonists was routine for asymptomatic patients and was not associated with postoperative protection against dyspeptic symptoms.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) versus placebo or no prophylaxis on all-cause mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and hospital-acquired pneumonia in adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists with either placebo or no prophylaxis. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration methodology was used. Risk ratios/relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, GI bleeding, and hospital-acquired pneumonia.

RESULTS

Twenty trials (n = 1,971) were included; all were judged as having a high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (fixed effect: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.20; P = 0.87; I(2) = 0%) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (random effects: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.78; P = 0.28; I(2) = 19%) between SUP patients and the no prophylaxis/placebo patients. These findings were confirmed in the TSA. With respect to GI bleeding, a statistically significant difference was found in the conventional meta-analysis (random effects: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.68; P = 0.01; I(2) = 48%); however, TSA (TSA adjusted 95% CI 0.18-1.11) and subgroup analyses could not confirm this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review using meta-analysis and TSA demonstrated that both the quality and the quantity of evidence supporting the use of SUP in adult ICU patients is low. Consequently, large randomised clinical trials are warranted.

Gastrointestinal prophylaxis in neurocritical care

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

Endothelin-1, Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase and Macrophage Inflammatory Protein-1?? in the Pathogenesis of Stress Ulcer in Neurotraumatic Patients

BACKGROUND

To prospectively identify histologically and endoscopically the effect of omeprazole on the expression of endothelin-1 (ET-1), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1alpha (MIP-1alpha) in the gastric mucosa of neurosurgical patients with stress ulcer.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with severe acute intracranial lesions caused by trauma were enrolled in this study. A 40 mg intravenous bolus of omeprazole (OME) was given daily for 7 days. The intragastric pH was continuously recorded for 24 hours on day 1 and 8. Endoscopic evaluation of the gastric corpus, antrum, and duodenal bulb was performed in the ICU, within 24 hours after brain injury, and at follow-up on the 7th day after admission. Paired biopsies were obtained for histologic examinations and immunohistochemical analysis was performed using a LSAB method for MIP-1alpha, ET-1, and iNOS.

RESULTS

There were 72% and 70% of gastroduodenal mucosal lesions at the initial and follow-up endoscopies, respectively. However, the severity of mucosal lesions showed significant improvement in most patients at follow-up (p < 0.05). Mean percentages of time intragastric pH were greater than or equal to 4.0 were 20 +/- 11% and 70 +/- 17% on day 1 and 8, respectively (p < 0.05). The incidences of ET-1, iNOS and MIP-1alpha expression were not significantly different between the patients before and after OME prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic OME is effective in reducing the severity of stress ulcerations in severe neurotraumatic patients. High incidence of tissue ET-1 expression combined with increased activity of iNOS and MIP-1alpha may be responsible for the gastric mucosal injury. We also show that OME fails to counter the enhancement in the mucosal expression of ET-1, iNOS, and MIP-1alpha caused by severe brain damage.

The use of intravenous H2-receptor antagonists in a tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVE

The rationale for the widespread use of intravenous H2 receptor antagonists(IVH2 RA) in hospitalized patients is not clear. We therefore examined prescribing patterns and, using strict criteria, determined whether use was appropriate. Cost of administration and potential savings were also determined.

METHODS

Data were obtained prospectively on 100 consecutive patients prescribed intravenous ranitidine and retrospectively on patients admitted with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

RESULTS

For the prospective study, various indications for prescribing intravenous ranitidine were given, including postoperative patients and patients treated with steroids. Using criteria from published literature 80% of the use was considered inappropriate. Nearly 40% of the doses were given while the patient was tolerating oral intake. Creatinine clearance was impaired in 26% of patients, though only one had dosage reduction. Estimated annual cost of intravenous ranitidine was $317,000. The retrospective study of 86 consecutive patients admitted with GI bleeding revealed that all patients received intravenous ranitidine on admission, none of which was considered appropriate. The final diagnoses were peptic ulcer (49), colonic process (11), esophagitis (seven), gastric erosions (five), esophageal varices (five), Mallory-Weiss tears (four), duodenitis (two), no diagnosis (three), and jejunal ulcer (one).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate use of intravenous ranitidine is common. This includes inappropriate indication, dosage, and duration of use. Large financial benefits could have been obtained if close attention was given to prescribing patterns.

Impact of trauma stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines on drug cost and frequency of major gastrointestinal bleeding

Trauma patients are routinely prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis despite evidence suggesting such therapy be limited to patients with identifiable risk factors for bleeding. With surgeons' consensus, we developed and implemented trauma stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines, and measured the impact of clinical pharmacists on implementing the guidelines and the effect of the guidelines on drug cost and frequency of major gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of 150 consecutive patients admitted with multiple trauma were evaluated before and after guideline implementation and stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS) to minor (ISS < 9) or moderate to severe (ISS > or = 9) trauma groups. The number of patients prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis, length and cost of this therapy, and number of patients experiencing major gastrointestinal bleeding (decrease in consecutive hemoglobin > or = 2 g/dl in conjunction with coffee-ground emesis, hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia) were measured. All pharmacist interventions pertaining to stress prophylaxis were collected. Fewer patients were prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis after guideline implementation (105/150, 70% vs 39/150, 26%, p<0.0001), leading to a decrease in total drug cost of $4558. Use decreased more in patients with minor (40/54, 74% vs 9/59, 15%, p<0.0001) than moderate to severe (65/96, 68% vs 30/91, 33%, p<0.0001) trauma. Neither length of therapy nor agent of choice (> 95% cimetidine) differed between groups. Fifteen (38%) of 38 postguideline prophylaxis orders were determined by the pharmacist not to meet guideline criteria. Recommendations to discontinue therapy were accepted in 9 (60%) of 15 instances. The frequency of major gastrointestinal bleeding remained unchanged between groups (1/150 vs 0/150, p=1.0). Implementation of trauma stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines limiting therapy to patients with risk factors for bleeding led to a 80% decrease in drug cost and did not affect the frequency of major gastrointestinal bleeding.

Survey of stress ulcer prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: No surveys of stress ulcer prophylaxis prescribing in the USA have been conducted since 1995. Since that time, the most comprehensive meta-analysis and largest randomized study to date concerning stress ulcer prophylaxis have been published. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-eight surveys were sent to all members of the Section of Pharmacy and Pharmacology of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. One hundred fifty-three (42%) surveys were returned. Representatives from 86% of institutions stated that medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis are used in a majority (>90%) of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Twenty-two per cent of institutions have recommendations for both ICU and non-ICU settings. Fifty-eight per cent of institutions stated that there was one preferred medication for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and in 77% of these histamine-2-antagonists were the most popular. CONCLUSIONS: There are wide variations in prescribing practices for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Institutions should consult published literature and use pre-existing guidelines as templates for developing their own guidelines.

Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center

OBJECTIVE

To determine the appropriateness and medication cost of stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after a targeted educational intervention.

DESIGN

In the preintervention cohort (phase 1), 264 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by a comprehensive literature search. Targeted educational programs were subsequently used to inform trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate. The postintervention cohort (phase 2) involved concurrent evaluation of 279 patients. Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved guidelines) between phases was compared using a Student's t-test for independent samples (alpha = .05).

SETTING

A 365-bed university medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted to any of the intensive care units and all patients who were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

INTERVENTIONS

Educational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient demographics in the two phases were similar and there was no difference in the number of patient risk factors for stress-induced bleeding. The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 +/- 4.36 days in phase 1 and 4.66 +/- 3.10 days in phase 2 (p < .05). Eighty-nine patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 +/- 25.52) compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 +/- 13.06). Three patients in each phase had clinically important bleeding (hemodynamic compromise or transfusion); all were receiving ranitidine. The mean total cost (fixed and variable) of hospitalization was $69,288.00 and $74,709.00 for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with $19,850.00 and $15,812.00 for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 30.00 days and 29.33 days for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with 11.54 days and 10.27 days for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis. Clinically important bleeding is uncommon but results in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs.

A review of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the neurosurgical intensive care unit

STRESS ULCERS OCCUR frequently in intensive care unit patients who have intracranial disease. After major physiological stress, endoscopic evidence of mucosal lesions of the gastrointestinal tract appears within 24 hours of injury; 17% of these erosions progress to clinically significant bleeding. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage has been associated with mortality rates of up to 50%. The pathogenesis of stress ulcers may not be completely understood, but gastric acid and pepsin appear to play significant roles. Antacids, H2 antagonists, and sucralfate are effective prophylactic agents in the medical/surgical intensive care unit. Appropriate therapy for neurosurgical patients remains unclear, however. This review summarizes the current literature regarding the pathogenesis and therapy of stress ulcers in neurosurgical patients.