Link to the University of Pittsburgh Homepage
Link to the University Library System Homepage Link to the Contact Us Form

Weighing risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients

Chanpura, T and Yende, S (2012) Weighing risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Critical Care, 16 (5). ISSN 1364-8535

[img]
Preview
PDF
Published Version
Available under License : See the attached license file.

Download (193kB) | Preview
[img] Plain Text (licence)
Available under License : See the attached license file.

Download (1kB)

Abstract

Citation: Marik PE, Tajender Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M: Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Med 2010, 38:11.Background: Recent observational studies suggest that bleeding from stress ulceration is extremely uncommon in intensive care unit patients. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding may not be altered by the use of acid suppressive therapy. Early enteral tube feeding (initiated within 48 h of intensive care unit admission) may account for this observation. Stress ulcer prophylaxis may, however, increase the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia and Clostridia difficile infection.Methods: Results: Seventeen studies (which enrolled 1836 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients received adequate enteral nutrition in three of the studies. Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis with a histamine-2 receptor blocker reduced the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.76; P < 0.002; Heterogeneity [I 2] = 44%); however, the treatment effect was noted only in the subgroup of patients who did not receive enteral nutrition. In those patients who were fed enterally, stress ulcer prophylaxis did not alter the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-3.7). Overall histamine-2 receptor blockers did not increase the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.61; P = 0.12; I 2 = 41%); however, this complication was increased in the subgroup of patients who were fed enterally (odds ratio 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.56; P = 0.02; I 2 = 0%). Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis had no effect on hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.37; P = 0.82). The hospital mortality was, however, higher in those studies (n = 2) in which patients were fed enterally and received a histamine-2 receptor blocker (odds ratio 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.44; P = 0.04, I 2 = 0%). Sensitivity analysis and metaregression demonstrated no relationship between the treatment effect (risk of gastrointestinal bleeding) and the classification used to define gastrointestinal bleeding, the Jadad quality score or the year the study was reported.Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, in those patients receiving enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis may not be required and, indeed, such therapy may increase the risk of pneumonia and death. However, because no clinical study has prospectively tested the influence of enteral nutrition on the risk of stress ulcer prophylaxis, those findings should be considered exploratory and interpreted with some caution. © 2012 BioMed Central Ltd.


Share

Citation/Export:
Social Networking:
Share |

Details

Item Type: Article
Status: Published
Creators/Authors:
CreatorsEmailPitt UsernameORCID
Chanpura, T
Yende, Sspy3@pitt.eduSPY3
Date: 29 October 2012
Date Type: Publication
Journal or Publication Title: Critical Care
Volume: 16
Number: 5
DOI or Unique Handle: 10.1186/cc11819
Schools and Programs: School of Medicine > Critical Care Medicine
Refereed: Yes
ISSN: 1364-8535
Date Deposited: 30 Nov 2016 17:28
Last Modified: 02 Feb 2019 13:58
URI: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/29807

Metrics

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Altmetric.com


Actions (login required)

View Item View Item