A pragmatic assessment of proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine type 2 receptor antagonists on clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality when used for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the ICU

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.

Proton-Pump Inhibitors to Prevent Gastrointestinal Bleeding - An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy and safety of proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We included randomized trials comparing proton-pump inhibitors versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill adults, performed meta-analyses, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. To explore the effect of proton-pump inhibitors on mortality based on disease severity, a subgroup analysis was conducted combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials and assessed credibility using the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve trials that enrolled 9533 patients were included. Proton-pump inhibitors were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 0.76]; high certainty evidence). Proton-pump inhibitors may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05]; low certainty). Within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of proton-pump inhibitors on mortality may differ based on disease severity. Subgroup results raise the possibility that proton-pump inhibitors may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98) and may increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.20]. Proton-pump inhibitors may have no effect on pneumonia and little or no effect on Clostridioides difficile infection (low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

High certainty evidence supports the association of proton-pump inhibitors with decreased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Proton-pump inhibitors may have little or no effect on mortality, although a decrease in mortality in less severely ill patients and an increase in mortality in more severely ill patients remain possible. (PROSPERO number CRD42023461695.).

Risk Factors and Prognosis Analysis of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Acute Severe Cerebral Stroke

GOALS

We aim to explore the relationship between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We develop a nomogram model to predict mortality in critically ill stroke patients.

STUDY

This is a retrospective study based on the MIMIC IV database. We extracted clinical information including demographic data, comorbidities, and laboratory indicators. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess and identify risk factors for the occurrence of UGIB and for the in-hospital mortality of critically ill stroke patients. The resulting model was used to construct a nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Five thousand seven hundred sixteen patients from the MIMIC-IV database were included in our analysis. UGIB occurred in 109 patients (1.9%), whereas the PPI use rate was as high as 60.6%. Chronic liver disease, sepsis, shock, anemia, and increased level of urea nitrogen were independent risk factors for the occurrence of UGIB in severe stroke patients. We identified age, heart failure, shock, coagulopathy, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, antiplatelet drugs, anticoagulation, simplified acute physiology score-II, and Glasgow coma score as independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality in severe stroke patients. The C-index for the final nomograms was 0.852 (95% confidence interval: 0.840, 0.864).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the overall rate of UGIB in severe stroke patients is low, whereas the rate of PPI usage is high. In our study, PPI was not identified as a risk factor for the occurrence of UGIB and UGIB was not associated with all-cause mortality. More clinical trials are needed to evaluate the benefits of using PPI in critically ill stroke patients.

Clinical Response to Third-Line Angiotensin-II vs Epinephrine in Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The appropriate third-line vasopressor in septic shock patients receiving norepinephrine and vasopressin is unknown. Angiotensin-II (AT-II) offers a unique mechanism of action to traditionally used vasopressors in septic shock.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of third-line AT-II to epinephrine in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients was performed between April 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022. Propensity-matched (2:1) analysis compared adults with septic shock who received third-line AT-II to controls who received epinephrine following norepinephrine and vasopressin. The primary outcome was clinical response 24 hours after third-line vasopressor initiation. Additional efficacy and safety outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three AT-II patients were compared with 46 epinephrine patients. 47.8% of AT-II patients observed a clinical response at hour 24 compared with 28.3% of epinephrine patients (P = 0.12). In-hospital mortality (65.2% vs 73.9%, P = 0.45), cardiac arrhythmias (26.1% vs 26.1%, P = 0.21), and thromboembolism (4.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.61) were not observed to be statistically different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Administration of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor agent in septic shock patients was not associated with significantly improved clinical response at hour 24 compared with epinephrine. Although underpowered to detect meaningful differences, the clinical observations of this study warrant consideration and further investigation of AT-II as a third-line vasopressor in septic shock.

Effects of Opioids, Steroids, Benzodiazepines, Anticholinergics, and Antihistamines on the Efficacy of Antipsychotics for Treating Delirium in End-of-Life Adult Patients Undergoing Palliative Care

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of combination therapy involving opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines on antipsychotics efficacy for delirium. The study included adult inpatients receiving end-of-life palliative care and diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Changes in delirium symptoms were assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 97 patients with ICDSC scores of ≥4, comparing the scores before and after antipsychotic administration. A mean score <4 sustained for 3 days after antipsychotics administration was considered effective. The mean days with ICDSC <4 within a 3-day period were evaluated as well. The efficacy of antipsychotics was compared between cases with and without the use of opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines. The results revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of antipsychotics for delirium when used in conjunction with opioids (odds ratio 0.614, 95% CI [0.179-2.105]), benzodiazepines (0.387, [0.108-1.390]), steroids (1.258, [0.276-5.746]), or anticholinergics (2.085, [0. 148-29.458]). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the mean days with ICDSC <4 within 3-day period. Although opioids, benzodiazepines, steroids, anticholinergics, and antihistamines are recognized as delirium risk factors, their use for symptom relief in patients with delirium may not affect antipsychotic efficacy.

Associated Mortality Risk of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for the Prevention of Stress Ulceration in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

GOALS

The aim was to systematically evaluate risks and benefits of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patient.

BACKGROUND

Whether PPIs increase mortality in the critically ill patient remains controversial.

STUDY

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with trial sequential analysis, Bayesian sensitivity analysis, and fragility index analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies in 78,009 critically ill adults receiving PPIs versus any comparator were included. PPI use was associated with an increased mortality risk in all studies [19.6% PPI vs. 17.5% comparator; RR: 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.20; P =0.01], in the subgroup of RCTs (19.4% vs. 18.7%; RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.0-1.09, P =0.04), but not cohort studies (19.9% vs. 16.7%; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.98-1.28, P =0.09). Results were maintained with a Bayesian sensitivity analysis (RR: 1.13; 95% credible interval: 1.035-1.227) and a fragility index analysis, but not sequential analysis ( P =0.16). RCTs with a higher baseline severity of illness revealed the greatest mortality risk with PPI use (32.1% PPI vs. 29.4% comparator; RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04-1.14; P <0.001). PPI use reduced clinically important bleeding in RCTs (1.4% PPI vs. 2.1% comparator; RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9; P =0.009) but increased bleeding in cohort studies (2.7% PPI vs. 1.2% comparator; RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.2-3.52; P =0.009). PPI use was not associated with a lower incidence of clinically important bleeding when compared with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (1.3% vs. 1.9%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.28-1.25, P =0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between PPI use and an increased risk of mortality.

Prophylactic acid suppression and enteral nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is routinely administered to critically ill patients who are at high-risk for clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding. Recent evidence however has highlighted adverse effects with acid suppressive therapy, particularly proton pump inhibitors where associations with higher mortality have been reported. Enteral nutrition may provide benefits in reducing the incidence of stress ulceration and may mitigate the need for acid suppressive therapy. This manuscript will describe the most recent evidence evaluating enteral nutrition for the provision of SUP.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are limited data evaluating enteral nutrition for SUP. The available studies compare enteral nutrition with or without acid suppressive therapy rather than enteral nutrition vs. placebo. Although data exist demonstrating similar clinically important bleeding rates in patients on enteral nutrition who receive SUP vs. no SUP, these studies are underpowered for this endpoint. In the largest placebo-controlled trial conducted to date, lower bleeding rates were observed with SUP and most patients were receiving enteral nutrition. Pooled analyses had also described benefit with SUP vs. placebo and enteral nutrition did not change the impact of these therapies.

SUMMARY

Although enteral nutrition may provide some benefit as SUP, existing data are not strong enough to validate their use in place of acid suppressive therapy. Clinicians should continue to prescribe acid suppressive therapy for SUP in critically ill patients who are at high risk for clinically important bleeding even when enteral nutrition is being provided.

Effects of anti-ulcer drugs on delirium in trauma patients

OBJECTIVE

Histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may induce a higher risk of developing delirium than proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), but current evidence is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether anti-ulcer drugs increase delirium risk.

METHOD

Data were obtained from the medical records of patients admitted to a hospital due to trauma. We compared the incidence of delirium in patients who received H2RAs and PPIs with that in patients who received no anti-ulcer drugs.

RESULTS

A total of 150, 158, and 238 patients received H2RAs, PPIs, and no anti-ulcer drugs, respectively. Delirium incidence was significantly higher in patients who received H2RAs (34.0%) and PPIs (44.9%) than in those who did not receive anti-ulcer drugs (22.3%). Even after adjustment for possible confounding factors, the association between H2RAs and delirium remained (adjusted OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.04-3.05), but that between PPIs and delirium was attenuated (adjusted OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.71-2.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that H2RAs are associated with delirium risk. We replicated findings of a previous data-driven study. Clinicians need to consider the effect of delirium in anti-ulcer drug selection.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

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