A randomized placebo controlled trial of ranitidine versus sucralfate in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage for prevention of gastric hemorrhage

Age-to-Glasgow Coma Scale score ratio predicts gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage

Objective

Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that advanced age and low initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score were independent predictors of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, used singly, age and GCS score have their respective shortcomings in predicting the occurrence of GIB. This study aimed to investigate the association between the age-to-initial GCS score ratio (AGR) and the risk of GIB following ICH.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study of consecutive patients presenting with spontaneous primary ICH at our hospital from January 2017 through January 2021. Patients who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were categorized into GIB and non-GIB groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were implemented to identify the independent risk factors for the occurrence of GIB, and a multicollinearity test was performed. Furthermore, one-to-one matching was conducted to balance important patient characteristics by the groups' propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

A total of 786 consecutive patients fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study, and 64 (8.14%) patients experienced GIB after primary ICH. Univariate analysis revealed that patients with GIB were significantly older [64.0 (55.0-71.75) years vs. 57.0 (51.0-66.0) years, p = 0.001] and had a higher AGR [7.32 (5.24-8.96) vs. 5.40 (4.31-7.11), p < 0.001] and a lower initial GCS score [9.0 (7.0-11.0) vs. 11.0 (8.0-13.0), p < 0.001]. The multicollinearity test revealed that no multicollinearity was observed in the multivariable models. Multivariate analysis showed that the AGR was a significant independent predictor of GIB [odds ratio (OR) 1.155, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.041-1.281, p = 0.007], as well as prior anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.388, 95% CI 0.160-0.940, p = 0.036) and MV used >24 h (OR 0.462, 95% CI 0.252-0.848, p = 0.013). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis illustrated that the optimal cutoff value for the AGR as a predictor for GIB in patients with primary ICH was 6.759 [the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.713 with a corresponding sensitivity of 60.94% and specificity of 70.5%, 95% CI 0.680-0.745, p < 0.001]. After 1:1 PSM, the matched GIB group had significantly higher AGR levels compared with the matched non-GIB group [7.47(5.38-9.32) vs. 5.24(4.24-6.40), p <0.001]. The ROC analysis indicated an AUC of 0.747 (the sensitivity was 65.62%, and the specificity was 75.0%, 95% CI 0.662-0.819, p < 0.001) for AGR levels as an independent predictor of GIB in patients with ICH. In addition, AGR levels were statistically correlated with unfunctional 90-day outcomes.

Conclusion

A higher AGR was associated with an increased risk of GIB and unfunctional 90-day outcomes in patients with primary ICH.

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.

A Nomogram for Individualized Prediction of Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Patients with Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage

PURPOSE

To establish and validate a nomogram model for predicting stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2018 to March 2021, we conducted a hospital-based study by screening eligible patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the predictors for stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. The nomogram was constructed on the basis of multivariate logistic model and was internally validated by bootstrap resampling. The discriminative performance of the nomogram was evaluated using the calibration and concordance index (C-index), which was equal to the area under the curve of receiver-operating characteristics. Hosmer-Lemeshow test was performed to check the model's goodness of fit. A decision curve analysis was used to assess its clinical utility.

RESULTS

A total of 410 patients were enrolled in this study. Stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 115 patients (28.0%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that gastric pH at admission [odds ratio (OR): 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.66, P < 0.001], ICH volume (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001) and sepsis (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.54-4.25, P < 0.001) were independent predictors for stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with ICH. The nomogram including gastric pH at admission, ICH volume and sepsis presented good discrimination with C-index of 0.770 (95% CI: 0.716 to 0.822), which was confirmed to be 0.764 through bootstrapping validation. The calibration plot showed good agreement between the predicted and observed outcomes. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed a goodness-of-fit (Chi-Square = 8.085, DF = 8, P = 0.425). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically beneficial.

CONCLUSION

The proposed nomogram based on gastric pH at admission, ICH volume and sepsis can accurately predict the risk of stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage.

Hemorrhagic stroke

Hemorrhagic stroke comprises about 20% of all strokes, with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) being the most common type. Frequency of ICH is increased where hypertension is untreated. ICH in particularly has a disproportionately high risk of early mortality and long-term disability. Until recently, there has been a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide evidence for the efficacy of various commonly considered interventions in ICH, including acute blood pressure management, coagulopathy reversal, and surgical hematoma evacuation. Evidence-based guidelines do exist for ICH and these form the basis for a framework of care. Current approaches emphasize control of extremely high blood pressure in the acute phase, rapid reversal of vitamin K antagonists, and surgical evacuation of cerebellar hemorrhage. Lingering questions, many of which are the topic of ongoing clinical research, include optimizing individual blood pressure targets, reversal strategies for newer anticoagulant medications, and the role of minimally invasive surgery. Risk stratification models exist, which derive from findings on clinical exam and neuroimaging, but care should be taken to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy of poor outcome from limiting treatment due to a presumed poor prognosis. Cerebral venous thrombosis is an additional subtype of hemorrhagic stroke that has a unique set of causes, natural history, and treatment and is discussed as well.

Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) occurs in approximately 2-4% of critically ill patients. Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have a (diffuse) space-occupying lesion, are critically ill, often require mechanical ventilation, and frequently receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after aneurysm embolization, all of which may be risk factors for SRMB. However, no studies have evaluated SRMB in patients with aSAH. Aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SRMB in aSAH patients, evaluate the effect of acid suppression on SRMB, and identify specific risk factors for SRMB.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted across 17 centers. Each center reviewed up to 50 of the most recent cases of aSAH. Patients with length of stay (LOS) < 48 h or active GI bleeding on admission were excluded. Variables related to demographics, aSAH severity, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, provision of SRMB prophylaxis, adverse events, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital LOS were collected for the first 21 days of admission or until hospital discharge, whichever came first. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A multivariate logistic regression modeling was utilized to examine the relationship between specific risk factors and the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding in patients with aSAH.

RESULTS

A total of 627 patients were included. The overall incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was 4.9%. Of the patients with clinically important GI bleeding, 19 (61%) received pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of GI bleeding, while 12 (39%) were not on pharmacologic prophylaxis at the onset of GI bleeding. Patients who received an acid suppressant agent were less likely to experience GI bleeding than patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.83). The multivariate regression analysis identified any instance of elevated intracranial pressure, creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min and the incidence of cerebral vasospasm as specific risk factors associated with GI bleeding. Cerebral vasospasm has not previously been described as a risk for GI bleeding (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.09-5.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important GI bleeding occurred in 4.9% of patients with aSAH, similar to the general critical care population. Risk factors associated with GI bleeding were prolonged mechanical ventilation (> 48 h), creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min, presence of coagulopathy, elevation of intracranial pressure, and cerebral vasospasm. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation within this patient population.

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.

Pharmacologic Prophylaxis of Stress Ulcer in Non-ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Acid-suppressive medications are widely used in non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients for stress ulcer (SU) prophylaxis. However, SU prophylaxis in this population is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these agents for SU prophylaxis in non-ICU patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid-Medline, Embase, Chinese CNKI, and Wanfang Data were systematically searched on July 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated acid-suppressive medications in non-ICU patients. Network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A random-effects model was used for generating pooled estimates. The primary outcome was occurrence of SU bleeding, and the adverse drug events (ADEs) were described as the secondary outcome.

FINDINGS

A total of 17 RCTs involving 1985 patients were eligible. Meta-analysis results indicated that the occurrence of SU bleeding was significantly decreased with all acid-suppressive medications compared with placebos (gastric mucosa protectants, OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.14-0.61]; H2-receptor antagonists, OR = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.18-0.50]; proton pump inhibitors [PPIs]: OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.04-0.16]). The occurrence of SU bleeding was significantly decreased with PPIs compared with gastric mucosa protectants (OR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.72) and H2-receptor antagonists (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.48). There was no significant difference between any 2 classes of PPIs on SU bleeding or any 2 acid-suppressive medications on ADEs.

IMPLICATIONS

PPIs could significantly decrease SU bleeding risk without increasing ADEs than other acid-suppressive medications for SU prophylaxis in non-ICU patients. However, RCTs of high quality were required to confirm the findings of this investigation.

Comparison of epidemiological and clinical features between two chronological cohorts of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

To investigate the differences in the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) treated at our institution over the last few decades. Two chronological cohorts with ten-year-interval were established and epidemiological and clinical data were retrospectively collected from patients with ICH, and data were analyzed using SPSS 13.0. The time windows for the two cohorts were from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 (2010-2014 cohort) and January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2004 (2000-2004 cohort). 1598 patients with ICH were enrolled: 360 patients in the 2000-2004 cohort and 1238 patients in the 2010-2014 cohort. ICH often occurred in patients aged from 45 to 75 years, without a sex bias, accounting for 69.6% of patients. Hypertension (60.7%) was still the main risk factors. Meanwhile, the risk factors of smoking (28.9%) and drinking (23.3%) were often present in male patients but not female patients (p ≤ 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary infection, the main complication during hospitalization, was 40.8% in the 2000-2004 cohort and 61.8% in the 2010-2014 cohort (p ≤ 0.001). Moreover, the incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was 12.5% in the 2000-2004 cohort and 6.0% in the 2010-2014 cohort (p ≤ 0.001). The epidemiological and clinical features have changed over the past 10 years. The mortality was reduced but still high, as evidenced by the increased hospitalization rate of patients with ICH. Current preventions and therapeutic strategies for ICH are effective, but more strategies must be developed to improve the outcome of ICH and decrease the incidence of pulmonary infection.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.

Sucralfate versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of using sucralfate versus H2RAs for SUP on patient important outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through June 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sucralfate to H2RAs for SUP in adult critically ill patients.

RESULTS

21 RCTs enrolling 3121 patients met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between sucralfate compared to H2RAs in the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 1.19; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.79, 1.80; P=0.42; I²=0%; low quality evidence). However, there was a statistically significant lower risk of ICU acquired pneumonia with sucralfate compared to H2RAs (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98; P=0.03; I²=0%; moderate quality evidence). Sucralfate did not significantly affect the risk of death (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82, 1.10; P=0.51; I²=0%; high quality evidence), or duration of ICU stay in days (mean difference-0.39; 95% CI [-1.12, 0.34]; P=0.29; I²=0%; moderate quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis adjusted estimates were consistent with conventional estimates.

CONCLUSION

Moderate quality evidence suggests that sucralfate reduced ICU acquired pneumonia compared to H2RAs in adult critically ill patients, with no significant impact on GI bleeding or death.

Ghrelin Attenuates Intestinal Barrier Dysfunction Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Mice

Intestinal barrier dysfunction remains a critical problem in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and is associated with poor prognosis. Ghrelin, a brain-gut peptide, has been shown to exert protection in animal models of gastrointestinal injury. However, the effect of ghrelin on intestinal barrier dysfunction post-ICH and its possible underlying mechanisms are still unknown. This study was designed to investigate whether ghrelin administration attenuates intestinal barrier dysfunction in experimental ICH using an intrastriatal autologous blood infusion mouse model. Our data showed that treatment with ghrelin markedly attenuated intestinal mucosal injury at both histomorphometric and ultrastructural levels post-ICH. Ghrelin reduced ICH-induced intestinal permeability according to fluorescein isothiocyanate conjugated-dextran (FITC-D) and Evans blue extravasation assays. Concomitantly, the intestinal tight junction-related protein markers, Zonula occludens-1 (ZO-1) and claudin-5 were upregulated by ghrelin post-ICH. Additionally, ghrelin reduced intestinal intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) expression at the mRNA and protein levels following ICH. Furthermore, ghrelin suppressed the translocation of intestinal endotoxin post-ICH. These changes were accompanied by improved survival rates and an attenuation of body weight loss post-ICH. In conclusion, our results suggest that ghrelin reduced intestinal barrier dysfunction, thereby reducing mortality and weight loss, indicating that ghrelin is a potential therapeutic agent in ICH-induced intestinal barrier dysfunction therapy.

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.

Combined use of GM1 with proton-pump inhibitors or H2-receptor antagonists for treatment of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with upper digestive tract hemorrhage

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined use of ganglioside (GM1) with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in the treatment of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with upper digestive tract hemorrhage.

METHODS: One hundred and eighty patients suffering from spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with upper digestive tract hemorrhage were randomly divided into 5 groups, including 4 treatment groups (A-D) and 1 control group (E). The treatment groups were given GM1 combined with different PPIs or H2RAs. Therapeutic outcomes were compared among different groups.

RESULTS: After 3 mo of treatment, the effective rates were significantly higher in the treatment groups (A-D: 91.67%, 88.89%, 91.67%, 86.11%) than in the control group (75.00%) (P < 0.05). Subjects with bleeding volumes of 10-50 cm³ in groups A-D showed significant reductions of hematoma volume and edema area on day 7 compared with the control group (P < 0.05), while there were no significant differences in subjects with bleeding volumes of 1-10 cm³ between groups A-D and the control group (P > 0.05). The incidence of upper abdominal discomfort and gastric erosion and the positive rate of fecal occult blood testing were significantly higher in groups A-D than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Combined use of GM1 with PPIs or H2RAs are effective and safe for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with upper digestive tract hemorrhage.

Gastrointestinal bleeding after intracerebral hemorrhage: a retrospective review of 808 cases

BACKGROUND

This study examined the incidence and risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

METHODS

The available medical records of patients with ICH admitted from June 2008 to December 2009 for any episode of GI bleeding, possible precipitating factors and administration of ulcer prophylaxis were reviewed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of GI bleeding was 26.7%, including 3 cases of severe GI bleeding (0.35%). Patients with GI bleeding had significantly longer hospital stay and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients without GI bleeding. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that age, Glasgow Coma Scale scores, sepsis and ICH volume were independent predictors of GI bleeding. About 63.4% of patients with ICH received stress ulcer prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

GI bleeding occurred frequently after ICH, but severe events were rare. Age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, sepsis and ICH volume were independent predictors of GI bleeding occurring after ICH.

Impact of advanced healthcare directives on treatment decisions by physicians in patients with acute stroke

BACKGROUND

The implementation of advanced healthcare directives, prepared by almost half of the adult population in United States remains relatively under studied. We determined the impact of advanced healthcare directives on treatment decisions by multiple physicians in stroke patients.

METHODS

A deidentified summary of clinical and radiological records of 28 patients with stroke was given to six stroke physicians who were not involved in the care of the patients. Each physician independently rated 28 treatment decisions per patient in the presence or absence of advanced healthcare directives 1 month apart to allow memory washout. The percentage agreement to treat/intervene per patient and proportion of treatment withheld as a group were estimated for each of the 28 treatment decision items. We also determined the interobserver reliability between the two raters (attorneys) in interpretation of six items characterizing the adequacy of documentation within the 28 advanced healthcare directives.

RESULTS

The percentage agreement among physician raters for treatment decisions in 28 stroke patients was highest for treatment of hyperpyrexia (100%, 100%) and lowest for ICU monitoring duration based on family-physician considerations outside of accepted criteria within institution (68%, 69%) in presence and absence of advanced healthcare directives. The physician rater agreement in choosing "yes" was highest for "routine-complexity" treatment decisions and lowest for "moderate-complexity" treatment decisions. The choice of withholding treatment in "routine-complexity," "moderate-complexity," or "high-complexity" treatment decisions was remarkably similar among raters in presence or absence of advanced healthcare directives. The only treatment decision that showed an impact of advanced healthcare directives was ICU monitoring withheld in 32% of treatment decisions in presence of directives (compared with 8% in the absence of directives). IV medication and defibrillation for cardiac arrest was withheld in 29% (compared with 19%) of the treatment decisions in the presence of advanced healthcare directives. The two attorney raters found the description of acceptable outcome inadequate in 14 and 21 of 28 advanced healthcare directives reviewed, respectively. The overall mean kappa for agreement regarding adequacy of documentation was modest (43%) for "does the advanced healthcare directive specify which treatments the patient would choose, or refuse to receive if they were diagnosed with an acute, terminal condition?" and lowest (3%) for "description of acceptable outcome."

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any prominent differences in most "routine-complexity," "moderate-complexity," or "high-complexity" treatment decisions in patient management in the presence of advanced healthcare directives. Presence of advanced healthcare directives also did not reduce the prominent variance among physicians in treatment decisions.

Clinical characteristics, management, and functional outcomes in Chinese patients within the first year after intracerebral hemorrhage: analysis from China National Stroke Registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to understand the association between clinical characteristics, medical management, and functional outcomes in Chinese patients with nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

METHODS

The China National Stroke Registry (CNSR) was a prospective cohort study that included 132 Chinese hospitals. Logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors associated with poor outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months, post-ICH onset.

RESULTS

Three thousand two hundred fifty five ICH patients with follow-up information up to 1 year post-ICH were included in this study. 49.1%, 47.1%, and 46.0% of ICH patients had poor outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Age, admission systolic blood pressure, admission Glasgow Coma Score, hematoma volume, withdrawal of support, and complication of gastrointestinal hemorrhage were associated with poor outcomes at 3 and 12 months. Stroke unit care was associated with good outcome at 3 months. Intensive care unit (ICU)/Neurology ICU care was associated with poor outcome at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of long-term functional outcomes in ICH patients from mainland China. Our study elucidates the risk factors that may influence functional outcomes post-ICH and therefore facilitate the development of management strategies to improve ICH care in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) present varying pharmacological efficacy in preventing stress ulcer bleeding (SUB) in intensive care units. The literature also reports disparate rates of ventilator-assisted pneumonia (VAP) as side effects of these treatments. We compared the cost-effectiveness of these two prophylactic pharmacological options.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree with a 60-day time horizon for patients at high risk for developing SUB, receiving either PPIs or H2RAs. For each treatment strategy, patients could be in one of three states of health: SUB, VAP, or no complication. Contemporary, clinically relevant probabilities were obtained from a broad literature search. Costs were estimated by using a representative US countrywide database. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Cost-effectiveness and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Probabilities of SUB and VAP were 1.3% and 10.3% for PPIs versus 6.6% and 10.3% for H2RAs, respectively. Lengths of stay and per diem costs were 24 days and US $2764 for SUB, 42 days and US $3310 for VAP, and 14 days and US $2993 for patients without complications. Average costs per no complication were US $58,700 for PPIs and US $63,920 for H2RAs. The H2RA strategy was dominated by PPIs. Sensitivity analysis showed that these findings were sensitive to VAP rates but PPIs remain cost-effective. The acceptability curve shows the stability of the probabilistic results according to varying willingness-to-pay values.

CONCLUSION

PPI prophylaxis is the most efficient prophylactic strategy in patients at high risk of developing SUB when compared with using H2RAs.

A randomized controlled study comparing omeprazole and cimetidine for the prophylaxis of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

OBJECT

Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are at high risk for severe stress-related upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding, which is predictive of higher mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of omeprazole and cimetidine compared with a placebo in the prevention and management of stress-related UGI bleeding in patients with ICH.

METHODS

In a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 184 surgically treated patients with CT-proven ICH within 72 hours of ictus and negative results for gastric occult blood testing were included. Of these patients, 165 who were qualified upon further evaluation were randomized into 3 groups: 58 patients received 40 mg intravenous omeprazole every 12 hours, 54 patients received 300 mg intravenous cimetidine every 6 hours, and 53 patients received a placebo. Patients whose gastric occult blood tests were positive at admission (n = 70) and during/after the prophylaxis procedure (n = 48) were treated with high-dose omeprazole at 80 mg bolus plus 8 mg/hr infusion for 3 days, followed by 40 mg intravenous omeprazole every 12 hours for 7 days.

RESULTS

Of the 165 assessable patients, stress-related UGI bleeding occurred in 9 (15.5%) in the omeprazole group compared with 15 patients (27.8%) in the cimetidine group and 24 patients (45.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.003). The occurrence of UGI bleeding was significantly related to death (p = 0.022). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in 14 patients (24.1%) receiving omeprazole, 12 (22.2%) receiving cimetidine, and 8 (15.1%) receiving placebo (p > 0.05). In patients with UGI bleeding in which high-dose omeprazole was initiated, UGI bleeding arrested within the first 3 days in 103 patients (87.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole significantly reduced the morbidity of stress-related UGI bleeding in patients with ICH due to its effective prophylactic effect without increasing the risk of nosocomial pneumonia, but it did not reduce the 1-month mortality or ICU stay. Further evaluation of high-dose omeprazole as the drug of choice for patients presenting with UGI bleeding is warranted. Clinical trial registration no.: ChiCTR-TRC-12001871, registered at the Chinese clinical trial registry (http://www.chictr.org/en/proj/show.aspx?proj=2384).

[Hemodynamic effects of intravenous omeprazole in critically ill children]

INTRODUCTION

Critical patients usually have hemodynamic disturbances which may become worse by the administration of some drugs. Omeprazole is a drug used in the prophylaxis of the gastrointestinal bleeding in these patients, but its cardiovascular effects are unknown. The objective was to study the hemodynamic changes produced by intravenous omeprazole in critically ill children and to find out if there are differences between two different doses of omeprazole.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized prospective observational study was performed on 37 critically ill children aged from 1 month to 14 years of age who required prophylaxis for gastrointestinal bleeding. Of these, 19 received intravenous omeprazole 0.5mg/kg every 12 hours, and 18 received intravenous omeprazole 1mg/kg every 12 hours. Intravenous omeprazole was administered in 20 minutes by continuous infusion pump. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure, central venous pressure and ECG were recorded at baseline, and at 15, 30, 60 and 120 minutes of the infusion.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in the electrocardiogram, heart rate, blood pressure and central venous pressure. No patients required inotropic therapy modification. There were no differences between the two doses of omeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous omeprazole administration of 0.5mg/kg and 1mg/kg is a hemodynamically safe drug in critically ill children.

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.

Proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis increases the risk of nosocomial pneumonia in patients with an intracerebral hemorrhagic stroke

BACKGROUND

Stress-related mucosal damage is an erosive process of the gastric lining resulting from abnormally high physiologic demands. To avoid the morbidity and mortality associated with significant bleeding from the damage, prophylaxis with an acid suppression medication is given. This is especially common in stroke victims. Recent studies have suggested a link between acid suppression therapy and nosocomial pneumonia, specifically implicating proton pump inhibitors (PPI), a potent acid suppression medication, as the culprit. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of admitted intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients and determined if there is a link between PPI prophylaxis and nosocomial pneumonia in our ICH population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of 200 ICH patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were reviewed from January 1, 2008 to October 31, 2009. PPIs were the only accepted form of acid suppression therapy. In all, 95 patients were given PPI prophylaxis, whereas 105 patients did not receive any form of acid suppression.

RESULTS

The unadjusted incidence rate of pneumonia in the PPI prophylactic group was 23.2%, and 10.5% in patients not having received prophylaxis. Additionally, patients treated with PPI prophylaxis were more likely to be critically ill, defined by an increase in conscious disturbance and dependency on mechanical ventilation and/or a nasogastric tube.

CONCLUSION

The use of a PPI as a prophylactic treatment against stress-related mucosal damage was associated with a higher occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia in our ICH population. This study suggests the need for further research investigating the use of PPI prophylaxis in ICH patients and the possibility of using alternate acid suppression therapeutic modalities.

Risk of fracture and pneumonia from acid suppressive drugs

A recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporating all relevant studies on the association of acid suppressive medications and pneumonia identified up to August 2009, revealed that for every 200 patients, treated with acid suppressive medication, one will develop pneumonia. They showed the overall risk of pneumonia was higher among people using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.11-1.46, I² = 90.5%] and Histamine_-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) (adjusted OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.36, I² = 0.0%). In the randomized controlled trials, use of H₂RAs was associated with an elevated risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.48, I² = 30.6%). Another meta-analysis of 11 studies published between 1997 and 2011 found that PPIs, which reduce stomach acid production, were associated with increased risk of fracture. The pooled OR for fracture was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.18-1.41) with use of PPIs and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99-1.23) with use of H₂RAs, when compared with non-use of the respective medications. Long-term use of PPIs increased the risk of any fracture (adjusted OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15-1.48) and of hip fracture risk (adjusted OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.09-1.66), whereas long-term H₂RA use was not significantly associated with fracture risk. Clinicians should carefully consider when deciding to prescribe acid-suppressive drugs, especially for patients who are already at risk for pneumonia and fracture. Since it is unnecessary to achieve an achlorhydric state in order to resolve symptoms, we recommend using the only minimum effective dose of drug required to achieve the desired therapeutic goals.

Intracerebral hemorrhage specific intensity of care quality metrics

BACKGROUND

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) care can vary among centers and previous studies have demonstrated differences in ICH outcome based on variations in patient care in various settings. The purpose of this paper is to present the design of an evidence-based dataset of elements of a new ICH specific intensity of care quality metrics.

METHODS

The articles were identified based on personal knowledge of the subject supplemented by data derived from multi-center randomized trials, and selected non-randomized or observational clinical studies. The information was identified with multiple searches on MEDLINE from 1986 through 2009. The current guidelines from American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) Stroke Council and The European Stroke Initiative (EUSI) Writing Committee for management of ICH were reviewed extensively for identifying quality indicators and available scientific evidence. For certain elements where stroke-specific data was not available, data derived from other disease process with direct relevance was used.

RESULTS

A total of 26 quality indicators related to 18 facets of care with thresholds for quality response were identified. A pilot study was performed to asses and score 1300 (26 indicator per patientX25 patientsX2 raters) quality indicators. The minimum proportion of patients meeting quality parameter ranged from 44% to 100% depending upon the variable. The lowest performance scores were observed in the early intubation and mechanical ventilation, treatment of significant intracranial mass effect or transtentorial herniation, and timely acquisition of neuroimaging. The highest performance scores were seen in treatment of any seizure within 2 weeks of admission, status epilepticus, and prevention of gastric ulcer.

CONCLUSIONS

The next step in development of a new ICH specific intensity of care quality metrics is validation and refinement of the quality indicators and thresholds presented in the current report. Future activities may include selection and validation based on consensus of experts and application of the system to a large series of patients with ICH and assessment of relationship of components in isolation and as a group to outcome after severity adjustment.

Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials have yielded inconsistent findings about the association between the use of acid-suppressive drugs and the risk of pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize this association.

METHODS

We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE [PubMed], Embase and the Cochrane Library) from inception to Aug. 28, 2009. Two evaluators independently extracted data. Because of heterogeneity, we used random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled estimates of effect.

RESULTS

We identified 31 studies: five case-control studies, three cohort studies and 23 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of the eight observational studies showed that the overall risk of pneumonia was higher among people using proton pump inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.46, I(2) 90.5%) and histamine(2) receptor antagonists (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36, I(2) 0.0%). In the randomized controlled trials, use of histamine(2) receptor antagonists was associated with an elevated risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, I(2) 30.6%).

INTERPRETATION

Use of a proton pump inhibitor or histamine(2) receptor antagonist may be associated with an increased risk of both community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia. Given these potential adverse effects, clinicians should use caution in prescribing acid-suppressive drugs for patients at risk.

Ranitidine is unable to maintain gastric pH levels above 4 in septic patients

PURPOSE

The study aimed to evaluate whether ranitidine and pantoprazole are able to maintain gastric pH >or=4 in septic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty intensive care unit patients from a university teaching hospital with sepsis were included in this study. Ten patients received ranitidine (50 mg as an intermittent bolus 3 times a day) and 10 received pantoprazole (40 mg as an intermittent bolus twice a day). Gastric pH was measured continuously for 48 hours. Endoscopy of the upper digestive tract, gastric biopsy, and investigation for Helicobacter pylori were carried out before and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

pH values >or=4 were maintained for 46.27% +/- 38.21% and 81.57% +/- 19.65% of study time in the ranitidine and pantoprazole groups, respectively (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous ranitidine was unable to maintain gastric pH above 4 in septic patients. All cases in the ranitidine group in whom pH remained above 4 had gastric hypotrophy or atrophy. Pantoprazole successfully maintained pH levels above 4.

Intracerebral haemorrhage

Intracerebral haemorrhage is an important public health problem leading to high rates of death and disability in adults. Although the number of hospital admissions for intracerebral haemorrhage has increased worldwide in the past 10 years, mortality has not fallen. Results of clinical trials and observational studies suggest that coordinated primary and specialty care is associated with lower mortality than is typical community practice. Development of treatment goals for critical care, and new sequences of care and specialty practice can improve outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage. Specific treatment approaches include early diagnosis and haemostasis, aggressive management of blood pressure, open surgical and minimally invasive surgical techniques to remove clot, techniques to remove intraventricular blood, and management of intracranial pressure. These approaches improve clinical management of patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and promise to reduce mortality and increase functional survival.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004.

DESIGN

Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding.

METHODS

We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004.

DESIGN

Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding.

METHODS

We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).

CONCLUSION

There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Management of Severe Sepsis in the Surgical Patient

Sepsis and septic shock are not uncommon conditions in the surgical intensive care unit. Sepsis is a generalized activation of the immune system in the presence of clinically suspected or culture-proven infection. Severe sepsis is sepsis with organ system dysfunction. Septic shock is sepsis with hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) without other causes. Although the incidence of sepsis is increasing, the case fatality rate is falling. This improvement in outcome is in part due to bold initiatives like the Surviving Sepsis Campaign from the Institute for Health Care Improvement. In this article the authors present the epidemiology of severe sepsis and evidence-based campaigns for its treatment, with a focus on the surgical patient.