Comparison of the effect of intermittent administration and continuous infusion of famotidine on gastric pH in critically ill patients: results of a prospective, randomized, crossover study

Allergy testing for Cremophor in a patient with cervical cancer with infusion reactions to paclitaxel and docetaxel

A woman in her 30s with cervical cancer underwent postoperative chemotherapy and showed allergic reactions to multiple taxanes. As the patient had infusion reactions to both paclitaxel and docetaxel, a prick test with Cremophor was conducted. In the absence of an allergic reaction to etoposide, we determined that the patient was allergic to pure taxane compounds. Among infusion reactions caused by taxanes, Cremophor allergy is reported in 3% of cases. Therefore, a prick test with Cremophor performed on a taxane infusion reaction will be useful in diagnosing allergy. In addition, allergy due to docetaxel may be managed by adequate premedication and continuous intravenous chlorpheniramine administration.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill children: Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is the considered standard of care in many critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Whether there is overall benefit or harm of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill children is unknown. Accordingly, we aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment in critically ill children in the ICU.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and assess the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, and Epistemonikos for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed, and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

There is a need for an updated systematic review to summarize the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill children to inform practice and future research.

Evaluation of the effect of a famotidine continuous rate infusion on intragastric pH in healthy dogs

Background

Famotidine is sometimes administered as a continuous rate infusion (CRI) to treat gastrointestinal ulceration in critically ill dogs. However, clinical studies have not evaluated the efficacy of a famotidine CRI in dogs.

Hypothesis/Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of famotidine at raising intragastric pH when it is administered as a CRI in dogs. We hypothesized that CRI treatment with famotidine would meet clinical goals for raising intragastric pH ≥3 and 4.

Animals

Nine healthy Beagle dogs.

Methods

Randomized 2‐way crossover. All dogs received 1.0 mg/kg IV q12h famotidine or CRI famotidine at 1.0 mg/kg IV loading dose and 8.0 mg/kg/d for 3 consecutive days. Beginning on day 0 of treatment, intragastric pH monitoring was used to continuously record intragastric pH. Mean percentage times (MPTs) for which intragastric pH was ≥3 and ≥4 were compared between groups using analysis of variance.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference (P < .05) in MPT ≥3 and ≥4 between the CRI and IV q12h groups on all treatment days. On days 1, 2, and 3, the MPTs ± SD for which pH was ≥3 were 92.1 ± 8.5, 96.3 ± 6.2, and 90.0 ± 15.7 for the CRI treatment group and 49.3 ± 27.3, 42.2 ± 19.6, and 45.8 ± 10.1, respectively, for the twice‐daily group.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

These results suggest that a famotidine CRI, but not standard doses of famotidine, achieves the clinical goals established in people to promote healing of gastric tissue injury and offers an alternative to intravenous treatment with proton pump inhibitors in dogs.

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.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients-protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is considered standard of care in many critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the quality of evidence supporting this has recently been questioned, and clinical equipoise exists. Whether there is overall benefit or harm of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients is unknown. Accordingly, we aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding irrespective of hospital setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and assess use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in any dose, formulation and duration. We will accept placebo or no prophylaxis as control interventions. The participants will be adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Epistemonikos for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed, and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

There is a need for a high-quality systematic review to summarise the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalised patients to inform practice and future research. Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is used worldwide, no firm evidence for benefit or harm as compared to placebo or no treatments has been established. Critical illness is a continuum not limited to the ICU setting, which is why it is important to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a wider perspective than exclusively in ICU patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017055676.

A Review of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis

Stress-related mucosal damage (SRMD) is an erosive process of the gastroduodenum that occurs frequently in critically ill patients. Symptomatic lesions may range from overt bleeding (by hematemesis, melena, bloody or coffee ground aspirates, or hematochezia) to clinically significant hemorrhage (hypotension, tachycardia, or acute anemia requiring transfusion). SRMD is caused by mucosal ischemia that produces an imbalance between injurious factors and the protective mechanisms. Common patient risk factors include mechanical ventilation, coagulopathy, shock, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, thermal injury, trauma, kidney or liver transplant, head injury or spinal cord injury, recent gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and pharmacologic interventions. Stress ulcer prophylaxis may be provided by administering one of the following pharmacologic agents: an antacid, a histamine2 receptor antagonist, sucralfate, or a proton pump inhibitor. All agents possess equal efficacies but differ in their mechanisms of action, adverse event profile, drug interactions, monitoring requirements, costs, and personnel requirements for preparation and administration. Implementation of institution-specific protocols for stress ulcer prophylaxis provides cost minimization by maximizing appropriate drug usage.

Cost-effectiveness of histamine receptor-2 antagonist versus proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients*

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Decision analysis model examining costs and effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Costs were expressed in 2012 U.S. dollars from the perspective of the institution and included drug regimens and the following outcomes: clinically significant stress-related mucosal bleed, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and Clostridium difficile infection. Effectiveness was the mortality risk associated with these outcomes and represented by survival. Costs, occurrence rates, and mortality probabilities were extracted from published data.

SETTING

A simulation model.

PATIENTS

A mixed adult ICU population.

INTERVENTIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Output variables were expected costs, expected survival rates, incremental cost, and incremental survival rate. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the drivers of incremental cost and incremental survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. For the base case analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist and $7,802 with proton pump inhibitor, resulting in a cost saving of $1,095 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The associated mortality probabilities were 3.819% and 3.825%, respectively, resulting in an absolute survival benefit of 0.006% with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The primary drivers of incremental cost and survival were the assumptions surrounding ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed. The probabilities that histamine receptor-2 antagonist was less costly and provided favorable survival were 89.4% and 55.7%, respectively. A secondary analysis assuming equal rates of C. difficile infection showed a cost saving of $908 with histamine receptor-2 antagonists, but the survival benefit of 0.0167% favored proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist therapy appears to reduce costs with survival benefit comparable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed are the variables most affecting these outcomes. The uncertainty in the findings justifies a prospective trial.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: is it indicated? A topical systematic review

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is regarded as standard of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, recent randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have questioned the rationale and level of evidence for this recommendation. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if SUP in the critically ill patients is indicated.

DATA SOURCES

 MEDLINE including MeSH, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.

PARTICIPANTS

patients in the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

pharmacological and non-pharmacological SUP.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Risk of bias was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and risk of random errors in cumulative meta-analyses was assessed with trial sequential analysis. A total of 57 studies were included in the review. The literature on SUP in the ICU includes limited trial data and methodological weak studies. The reported incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding varies considerably. Data on the incidence and severity of GI bleeding in general ICUs in the developed world as of today are lacking. The best intervention for SUP is yet to be settled by balancing efficacy and harm. In essence, it is unresolved if intensive care patients benefit overall from SUP. The following clinically research questions are unanswered: (1) What is the incidence of GI bleeding, and which interventions are used for SUP in general ICUs today?; (2) Which criteria are used to prescribe SUP?; (3) What is the best SUP intervention?; (4) Do intensive care patients benefit from SUP with proton pump inhibitors as compared with other SUP interventions? Systematic reviews of possible interventions and well-powered observational studies and RCTs are needed.

Prevention and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Complications in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation

There exists a complex, dynamic interaction between mechanical ventilation and the splanchnic vasculature that contributes to a myriad of gastrointestinal tract complications that arise during critical illness. Positive pressure-induced splanchnic hypoperfusion appears to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of these complications, the most prevalent of which are stress-related mucosal damage, gastrointestinal hypomotility and diarrhea. Furthermore, characteristics of the splanchnic vasculature make the gastrointestinal tract vulnerable to adverse effects related to positive pressure ventilation. While most of these complications seen in mechanically ventilated patients are reflections of altered gastrointestinal physiology, some may be attributed to medical interventions instituted to treat critical illness. Since maintenance of normal hemodynamics cannot always be achieved, pharmacologic prophylactic therapy has become a mainstay in the prevention of gastrointestinal complications in the intensive care unit. Improved understanding of the systemic effects of mechanical ventilation and greater application of lung-protective ventilatory strategies may potentially minimize positive pressure-induced reductions in splanchnic perfusion, systemic cytokine release and, consequently, reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications associated with mechanical ventilation. Herein, we discuss the pathophysiology of gastrointestinal complications associated with mechanical ventilation, summarize the most prevalent complications and focus on preventive strategies and available treatment options for these complications. The most common causes of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in mechanically ventilated patients are bleeding from stress-related mucosal damage and erosive esophagitis. In general, histamine H(2) receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors prevent stress-related mucosal disease by raising the gastric fluid pH. Proton pump inhibitors tend to provide more consistent pH control than histamine H(2) receptor antagonists. There is no consensus on the drug of choice for stress ulcer prophylaxis with several meta-analyses providing conflicting results on the superiority of any medication. Prevention of erosive esophagitis include careful use of nasogastric tubes and institution of strategies that improve gastric emptying. Many mechanically ventilated patients have gastrointestinal hypomotility and diarrhea. Treatment options for gastrointestinal motility are limited, thus, preventive measures such as correction of electrolyte abnormalities and avoidance of medications that impair gastrointestinal motility are crucial. Treatment of diarrhea depends on the underlying cause. When associated with Clostridium difficile infection antibacterial therapy should be discontinued, if possible, and treatment with oral metronidazole should be initiated.More studies are warranted to better understand the systemic effects of mechanical ventilation on the gastrointestinal tract and to investigate the impact of lung protective ventilatory strategies on gastrointestinal complications.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and stress gastric ulcers can be serious complications in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. This review discusses the risk factors associated with the development of DVT and stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD), evaluates the available literature on current options for DVT and stress ulcer prophylaxis, and examines the associated adverse effects and optimal duration of therapy.

Stress ulcer bleeding

Although upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD) in critically ill patients is common, significant bleeding with hemodynamic instability is not. Risk factor assessment can assist in identifying patients with a greater likelihood of developing significant SRMD. Prophylaxis against stress ulcer bleeding with luminal agents (eg, antacids and sucralfate) or drugs that inhibit acid secretion (eg, histamine 2-receptor antagonists and proton-pump inhibitors) can reduce major bleeding but has little or no effect on mortality. Currently, the mainstays of prophylactic therapy for SRMD are intravenously administered H2RAs and PPIs. Wider usage of PPIs reflects their enhanced efficacy in suppressing acid secretion as well as lack of tolerance for H2RAs. Guidelines for the prophylactic use of H2RAs or PPIs in treatment of SRMD will require large, randomized studies that also examine cost effectiveness of individual strategies.

Stress-related mucosal disease: risk factors and prophylactic therapy

BACKGROUND

The term stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD) represents a continuum of conditions ranging from stress-related injury (superficial mucosal damage) to stress ulcers (focal deep mucosal damage). Caused by mucosal ischemia, SRMD is most commonly seen in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Prophylaxis of stress ulcers may reduce major bleeding but has not yet been shown to improve survival.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews currently available agents for the prophylaxis of SRMD and discusses their uses and potential adverse effects.

METHODS

Relevant articles in the English-language literature were identified through a MEDLINE search (1968-2003) using the key words stress-related mucosal disease, stress-related injury, ulcer, prophylaxis, intensive care unit, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

The most widely used drugs for stress-related injury are the intravenous histamine(2)-receptor antagonists. These drugs raise gastric pH but are associated with the development of tolerance and possible drug interactions and neurologic manifestations. Sucralfate, which can be administered by the nasogastric route, can protect the gastric mucosa without raising pH, but may decrease the absorption of concomitantly administered oral medications. The prostaglandin misoprostol has not been shown to be of benefit in the prophylaxis of SRMD. Antacids lower the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, but large volumes of antacids are required and treatment is labor intensive. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most potent acid-suppressive pharmacologic agents available. Esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole substantially raise gastric pH for up to 24 hours after a single dose. The availability of an intravenous formulation of pantoprazole may help improve the treatment of SRMD in ICU patients, particularly those receiving mechanical ventilation. Tolerance does not develop, and few adverse effects have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent studies of PPIs have shown promising results in high-risk patients, making this class of drugs an option for the prophylaxis of SRMD.

Proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults.

DATA SOURCES

Computerized biomedical literature search of MEDLINE (1966-June 2002) was conducted using the MeSH headings proton-pump inhibitor, ulcer, critical care, and acid. References of selected articles were reviewed. A manual search of critical care, surgery, trauma, gastrointestinal, and pharmacy journals was conducted to identify relevant abstracts.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Traditional medications used for stress ulcer prophylaxis include antacids, histamine(2) receptor antagonists (H(2)RAs), and sucralfate. Few studies have evaluated PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis. The majority of studies have demonstrated that enteral or intravenous administration of PPIs to critically ill patients elevates intragastric pH and consistently maintains pH > or =4.0. PPIs are safe and seem to be as efficacious as H(2)RAs or sucralfate for prevention of bleeding from stress-related mucosal damage (SRMD) and they may provide cost minimization. The small patient populations limit the results of comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data indicate that PPIs are safe and efficacious for elevating intragastric pH in critically ill patients. PPIs should be used only as an alternative to H(2)RAs or sucralfate since the superiority of PPIs over these agents for preventing SRMD-associated gastrointestinal bleeding has not been established. Additional comparative studies with adequate patient numbers and pharmacoeconomic analyses are needed before PPIs are considered the agents of choice for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

GI complications in patients receiving mechanical ventilation

Mechanical ventilation (MV) can be lifesaving by maintaining gas exchange until the underlying disorders are corrected, but it is associated with numerous organ-system complications, which can significantly affect the outcome of critically ill patients. Like other organ systems, GI complications may be directly attributable to MV, but most are a reflection of the severity of the underlying disease that required intensive care. The interactions of the underlying critical illness and MV with the GI tract are complex and can manifest in a variety of clinical pictures. Incorporated in this review are discussions of the most prevalent GI complications associated with MV, and current diagnosis and management of these problems.

Gastrointestinal problems in the chronically critically ill patient

In summary, a variety of gastrointestinal processes may occur in the chronically critically ill patient population, usually as consequence of the primary systemic process. The clinical presentation is frequently nonclassic and there often is a substantial delay in diagnosis, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit. The gastroenterologist's perspective

Although SRES-associated hemorrhage previously constituted a significant cause of bleeding in the ICU, improvements in ICU management and the institution of prophylactic measures in high-risk patients have significantly reduced SRES-associated hemorrhage since the 1980s. Antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, and sucralfate have been shown to be effective in preventing clinically significant bleeding resulting from SRES, particularly when the intragastric pH is maintained at greater than 4. A selective approach should be adopted in SRES prophylaxis: Patients on mechanical ventilation, with coagulopathy, or with two of the other known risk factors should receive prophylaxis. Although the drug of choice depends to some extent on local preferences, an H2-receptor antagonist by continuous intravenous infusion may represent the best option. No pharmacologic therapy is of proven value once hemorrhage begins, but the current interventional techniques are effective in controlling hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal bleeding from NOMV has become less common with improvements in the hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients, but this disease must always be considered when lower gastrointestinal bleeding occurs in the context of relative hypoperfusion. For SRES and NOMV, treatment of the underlying disease or diseases is the optimal route to prevention.

Gastrointestinal complications in the intensive care unit

Pathologic conditions affecting the abdomen are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit, but their importance is not widely recognized. This article presents several aspects of abdominal pathology that can occur in intensive care unit patients. This pathology may have a considerable impact on the prognosis and survival of the critically ill patient. The diagnostic contribution of laboratory tests and imaging is discussed. Conditions such as the abdominal compartment syndrome, acute mesenteric ischemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, diarrhea, abdominal sepsis, complications of entereal and parenteral nutrition, and ileus in critically ill patients are also reviewed.

Upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in critically ill pediatric patients

Similar to adults, children under physiologic stress can develop an imbalance in defensive (mucosal layer, motility) and aggressive (gastric acid, bile salts, enzymes) factors responsible for maintaining a healthy gastrointestinal tract. Hypoxia in the gastrointestinal tract likely disrupts the defensive factors, thereby permitting damage by aggressive factors to upper gastrointestinal epithelium that may progress to stress ulceration and acute upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding (UGIB). The basic pathophysiology may be similar in children and adults; however, differences in the time to developing ulceration, ulcer location, and number of ulcers have been reported. Functional development of the gastrointestinal tract is influenced by disease, gestational and postnatal age, and exposure to and type of enteral feedings, thereby confounding the development and prophylaxis of UGIB in neonates and infants. In addition, pharmacotherapy decisions are often complicated by drug administration issues and adverse effects.

Effect of cilastatin on cyclosporine-induced acute nephrotoxicity in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine (CsA)-induced acute nephrotoxicity could be reduced by prevention of parenchymal accumulation of the drug itself. The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate whether cilastatin, an inhibitor of active tubular resorption of CsA, reduces CsA-induced acute nephrotoxicity in kidney graft recipients.

METHODS

Sixty-nine kidney recipients with immediate graft functional recovery were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (imipenem/cilastatin, n=33) or the control group (ceftazidime, n=36). All patients followed a standard immunosuppressive regimen based on CsA and low-dose prednisone. Graft function and CsA levels were evaluated 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 days after transplantation.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, imipenem/cilastatin administration reduced the serum creatinine level in the first 2 weeks after transplantation, reaching a significant effect on postoperative day 10 (P<0.05). No significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for CsA levels, patient and graft survival, and all the other examined parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the hypothesis that cilastatin administration can reduce CsA-induced acute nephrotoxicity after kidney transplantation.