Pantoprazole or Placebo for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis (POP-UP): Randomized Double-Blind Exploratory Study

Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.

RESULTS

We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Guideline for the Prevention of Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Adults

RATIONALE

Critically ill adults can develop stress-related mucosal damage from gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and reperfusion injury, predisposing them to clinically important stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of UGIB in adults in the ICU.

DESIGN

A multiprofessional panel of 18 international experts from dietetics, critical care medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, and two methodologists developed evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guideline development including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

The panel members identified and formulated 13 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and then assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Good practice statements were included to provide additional guidance.

RESULTS

The panel generated nine conditional recommendations and made four good practice statements. Factors that likely increase the risk for clinically important stress-related UGIB in critically ill adults include coagulopathy, shock, and chronic liver disease. There is no firm evidence for mechanical ventilation alone being a risk factor. Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk. All critically ill adults with factors that likely increase the risk for stress-related UGIB should receive either proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, at low dosage regimens, to prevent UGIB. Prophylaxis should be discontinued when critical illness is no longer evident or the risk factor(s) is no longer present despite ongoing critical illness. Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU is necessary to prevent inappropriate prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline panel achieved consensus regarding the recommendations for the prevention of stress-related UGIB. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear.

METHODS

In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study

BACKGROUND

Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo-A Blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease

OBJECTIVES

The routine use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) in the cardiac ICU (CICU) is controversial. We aimed to conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of performing a subsequent larger trial to assess the safety and efficacy of withholding SUP in this population (NCT03667703).

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS

Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, parallel group (SUP vs. placebo), pilot randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU and anticipated to require respiratory support for greater than 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 (stratified by age and admission type) to receive a histamine-2 receptor antagonist or placebo until respiratory support was discontinued, up to 14 days, or transfer from the CICU, if earlier.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Feasibility was defined a priori by thresholds of screening rate, consent rate, timely drug allocation, and protocol adherence. The safety outcome was the rate of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. We screened 1,426 patients from February 2019 to March 2022; of 132 eligible patients, we gained informed consent in 70 (53%). Two patients did not require CICU admission after obtaining consent, and the remaining 68 patients were randomized to SUP (n = 34) or placebo (n = 34). Ten patients were withdrawn early, because of a change in eligibility (n = 3) or open-label SUP use (n = 7, 10%). Study procedures were completed in 58 patients (89% protocol adherence). All feasibility criteria were met. There were no clinically significant episodes of UGI bleeding during the pilot RCT. The percentage of patients with other nonserious adverse events did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Withholding of SUP in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU was feasible. A larger multicenter RCT designed to confirm the safety of this intervention and its impact on incidence of UGI bleeding, gastrointestinal microbiome, and other clinical outcomes is warranted.

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03374800.

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

GOALS

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Discontinuation Guidance in Mechanically Ventilated, Critically Ill Patients: A Pre-Post Cohort Study

Purpose

Recent data highlight unclear efficacy and potential negative sequelae of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Minimizing SUP exposure has pertinent clinical and other implications. This study assessed medication use and clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a practice guideline promoting early discontinuation of SUP in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Methods

Retrospective, single-center, pre-post cohort study within a medical ICU at a large, academic medical center. Adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation and receiving SUP via a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were eligible for inclusion. The clinical practice guideline was implemented on January 1, 2020. The impact of implementation was assessed via percent of patient-days with inappropriate SUP. Incidence of clinically important GI bleed was the primary safety outcome.

Results

A total of 137 pre-guideline and 112 post-guideline patients were included. Comorbidity burden was similar between groups. A higher prevalence of baseline vasopressor receipt (39% vs 67%, P < .01) and acute kidney injury (56% vs 69%, P = .04) was observed in post-guideline patients. Post-guideline patients experienced a significantly lower percentage of patient-days of inappropriate SUP (25% vs 50%, P < .01) as well as higher rates of SUP discontinuation before extubation (71% vs 12%, P < .01) and during ICU stay (93% vs 50%, P < .01). Post-guideline patients observed a significantly lower incidence of SUP at hospital discharge (4% vs 35%, P < .01). No differences in bleeding outcomes were observed, though post-guideline patients experienced longer durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay.

Conclusions

Implementation of an early SUP discontinuation guideline was associated with significant improvements in SUP prescribing practices. Baseline differences between groups likely explain observed differences in clinical outcomes.

CYP2C19 Gene Profiling as a Tool for Personalized Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis With Proton Pump Inhibitors in Critically Ill Patients - Recommendations Proposal

To this date, there are no recommendations for personalized stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critical care that would take the patient's individual genetic predispositions into account. Of drugs used for this purpose, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-choice drugs in intensive care unit patients. The degradation of proton pump inhibitors is mediated by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes; in particular, CYP2C19 and, to a lesser extent, CYP3A4 are involved. Expression and metabolic activity of, namely in, CYP2C19 is significantly affected by single nucleotide polymorphisms, the drug metabolization rate varies greatly from ultrarapid to poor and likely influences the optimal dosage. As these CYP2C19 predictive phenotypes via CYP2C19 haplogenotypes (rs12248560/rs4244285) can be relatively easily determined using the current standard equipment of hospital laboratories, we prepared a set of recommendations for personalized PPI-based stress ulcer prophylaxis taking into account the patient's CYP2C19 predictive phenotype determined in this way. These recommendations are valid, in particular, for European, American and African populations, because these populations have the high representations of the CYP2C19^*17 allele associated with the overexpression of the CYP2C19 gene and ultrarapid degradation of PPIs. We propose the CYP2C19 gene profiling as a tool for personalized SUP with PPI in critically ill patients.

Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor and Infection and Major Adverse Clinical Events in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

Infections are not common but important in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and are associated with worse outcomes. Infection was proved to be associated with the use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in several cohorts. It remains unclear whether PPI usage affects infection in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Methods

We consecutively enrolled patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2010 to June 2018. All patients were divided into the PPI group and non-PPI group according to whether the PPI was used. The primary endpoint was the development of infection during hospitalization.

Results

A total of 3027 patients were finally enrolled, with a mean age of 62.2 ± 12.6 years. 310 (10.2%) patients were developed infection during hospitalization. Baseline characteristics were similar between the PPI and non-PPI groups (n = 584 for each group) after propensity score analysis. PPI usage was significantly associated with infection based on the propensity score matching analysis (adjusted OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.02-2.57, P = 0.041). Comparing to patients with non-PPI usage, PPI administration was positively associated with higher risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality (adjusted OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.06-9.97, P = 0.039) and in-hospital major adverse clinical events (adjusted OR = 3.71, 95% CI = 1.61-8.56, P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the impact of PPI on infection was not significantly different among patients with or without diabetes and patients with age ≥65 years or age <65 years.

Conclusion

PPI usage was related to a higher incidence of infection during hospitalization, in-hospital all-cause mortality, and in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) in STEMI patients.

Pharmacist-Led Intervention on the Inappropriate Use of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Pharmacotherapy in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic review

Background: Pharmacist's direct intervention or participation in multidisciplinary management teams can improve the clinical outcome and quality of life of patients. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on the inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) pharmacotherapy in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: A systematic review was performed for relevant studies using searched PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and four Chinese databases from the establishment of databases to 12 March 2020. We conducted a descriptive analysis of participants, the intervention content and delivery, and the effects on inappropriate medication rates. Results: From 529 records, 8 studies from 9 articles were included in the systematic review. The time of appropriateness judgment and the criteria of "appropriate" varied from included studies. Pharmacist interventions mainly included clarifying indications for SUP pharmacotherapy, education and awareness campaign, reviewed patients on SUP pharmacotherapy during rounds, and adjustments of drug use. Five (62.5%) studies found a significant intervention effect during hospitalization, while 2 (25%) studies at ICU transfer and 2 (25%) studies at hospital discharge. 4 (50%) studies identified the complications related to SUP pharmacotherapy and found no significant difference. 4 (50%) studies declared the pharmacist-led interventions were associated with cost savings. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led intervention is associated with a decrease in inappropriate use of SUP pharmacotherapy during hospitalization, at ICU transferred and hospital discharged, and a lot of medical cost savings. Further research is needed to determine whether pharmacist-led intervention is cost-effective.

A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of the Use of Enteral Nutrition Plus Pharmacologic Prophylaxis or Enteral Nutrition Alone

Background: Due to the risk of development of stress ulcers in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, pharmacologic prophylaxis is often utilized. However, some literature describes the use of enteral nutrition instead as stress ulcer prophylaxis. Methods: The purpose of this study is to determine if enteral nutrition is similar to pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with enteral nutrition for reduction of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, perforation, or ulceration in ICU patients. This was a retrospective, single-center cohort study that took place at an academic medical center. Adult ICU patients receiving enteral nutrition who had a risk factor for stress-related mucosal damage were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of GI bleeding, perforation, or ulcer formation. Results: Overall, 167 patients were included in the study, 147 in the pharmacologic prophylaxis plus EN group (PPEN) and 20 in the enteral therapy only (EN) group. Of 167 patients included, 22 patients (21 in the PPEN group and 1 in the EN group) developed a primary outcome of GI bleeding, perforation, or ulceration (14.3% vs 5%, P = .4781). Patients in the PPEN group had a higher incidence of pneumonia (42.2% vs 15%, P = .0194), but no difference was seen between groups when patients with pneumonia present on admission were excluded (20.6% vs 10.5%, P = .5254). Conclusion: In this small cohort of patients, enteral nutrition alone is as effective as pharmacologic therapy in addition to enteral nutrition for the reduction of stress-related GI bleeding, perforation, and ulceration.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and risks of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) versus histamine-2 receptor blocker (H2B) use for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients with sepsis and risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III Clinical Database to identify critically ill adult patients with sepsis who had at least one risk factor for GIB and received either an H2B or PPI for ≥48 hours. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 1056 patients were included in the H2B and PPI groups. The PPI group had higher in-hospital mortality (23.8% vs. 17.5%), GIB (8.9% vs. 1.6%), and pneumonia (49.6% vs. 41.6%) rates than the H2B group. After adjusting for risk factors of GIB and pneumonia, PPI use was associated with a 1.28-times increased risk of in-hospital mortality, 5.89-times increased risk of GIB, and 1.32-times increased risk of pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill adult patients with sepsis at risk for GIB, SUP with PPIs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and higher risk of GIB and pneumonia than H2Bs.

A fixed dose approach to thrombosis chemoprophylaxis may be inadequate in heavier critically ill patients

Objectives: Overweight patients are at greater risk of venous thromboembolism. We aimed to describe prescribing patterns of thrombosis chemoprophylaxis in critically ill patients weighing ≥ 100 kg and quantify the effectiveness of these regimens using the surrogate biomarker of plasma anti-Xa level. Design, setting and patients: A prospective single-centre cohort study was conducted over a 6-month period. Patients weighing ≥ 100 kg who were prescribed enoxaparin for chemoprophylaxis and expected to remain in the intensive care unit for > 48 hours were eligible. Anti-Xa levels were measured once a patient had received at least three consecutive doses of enoxaparin. Peak levels were measured 4-6 hours after the third dose and trough levels were measured before the fourth dose. Anti-Xa levels were compared with established target ranges for peak and trough anti-Xa levels (0.2-0.5 IU/mL and > 0.1 IU/mL, respectively). Results: Eighty-eight patients met the eligibility criteria, and anti-Xa levels for 42 patients were obtained. Fixed dose chemoprophylaxis approaches varied considerably, with 40 mg once daily (54/88 [61%]) and 40 mg twice daily (20/88 [23%]) being the most frequently prescribed regimens. No patient had a peak anti-Xa level > 0.5 IU/mL. When comparing 40 mg once daily versus twice daily, the once daily regimen had lower median trough levels (0.01 IU/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 0.00-0.04] v 0.09 IU/mL [IQR, 0.05-0.13]; P < 0.001) and greater proportions of patients with levels below the established range (< 0.1 IU/mL) (15/16 [95%] v 7/14 [50%]; P = 0.002) and levels that were undetectable (0.00 IU/mL) (8/16 [50%] v 1/14 [7%]; P = 0.01). Conclusions: At a single centre, thrombosis chemoprophylaxis prescribing patterns for heavier critically ill patients varied considerably. Current fixed dose approaches may be inadequate in this cohort.

Do the types and routes of proton pump inhibitor treatments affect clostridium difficile in ICU patients? A retrospective cohort study

Background: : Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are associated with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Impact of the route of administration is unknown.Research Design and Methods: Patients in Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II database (MIMIC-II) from 2001 to 2008, >18 years old, admitted to medical, surgical, or cardiac ICUs were included. PPI exposures were omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole. PPI administration routes were oral or intravenous. Patients who received histamine receptor antagonists (H2RA) were the control arm. CDI was identified using ICD-9 diagnostic code 008.45. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR).Results: The study included 16,820 patients (57% male) with a mean age of 63 (SD±17) years and hospitalization duration of 10.2 days (SD±11). Pantoprazole was the most common PPI (94%). CDI occurred in 2.4% and more in patients receiving PPIs than H2RAs (3.0% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). CDI prevalence increased with intravenous (95%CI = 1.69-3.39, OR 2.4) and oral (95%CI = 1.59-3.27, OR 2.3) PPI use compared to H2RAs. CDI prevalence was not associated with PPI route in the multivariable model (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.86-1.34).Conclusions: Both intravenous and oral PPI use in the ICU were independently associated with CDI.

Drug dosing in the critically ill obese patient: a focus on medications for hemodynamic support and prophylaxis

Medications used for supportive care or prophylaxis constitute a significant portion of drug utilization in the intensive care unit. Evidence-based guidelines are available for many aspects of supportive care but drug doses listed are typically for patients with normal body habitus and not morbid obesity. Failure to account for the pharmacokinetic changes that occur with obesity can lead to an incorrect dose and treatment failure or toxicity. This paper is intended to help clinicians design initial dosing regimens in critically ill obese patients for medications commonly used for hemodynamic support or prophylaxis. A detailed literature search of medications used for supportive care or prophylaxis listed in practice guidelines was conducted with an emphasis on obesity, pharmacokinetics and dosing. Relevant manuscripts were reviewed and strategies for dosing are provided. For medications used for hemodynamic support, a similar strategy can be used as in non-obese patients. Similarly, medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis do not need to be adjusted. Anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, on the other hand, require an individualized approach where higher doses are necessary.

Using a Systems Engineering Framework to Evaluate Proton Pump Inhibitor Prescribing in Critically Ill Patients

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a risk factor for hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Much PPI use is inappropriate, and interventions to reduce PPI use, such as for stress ulcer prophylaxis in all critically ill patients, are essential to reduce CDI rates. This mixed-methods study in a combined medical-surgical intensive care unit at a tertiary academic medical center used a human factors engineering approach to understand barriers and facilitators to optimizing PPI prescribing in these patients. We performed chart review of patients for whom PPIs were prescribed to evaluate prescribing practices. Semistructured provider interviews were conducted to determine barriers and facilitators to reducing unnecessary PPI use. Emergent themes from provider interviews were classified according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. In our intensive care unit, 25% of PPI days were not clinically indicated. Barriers to optimizing PPI prescribing included inadequate provider education, lack of institutional guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and strong institutional culture favoring PPI use. Potential facilitators included increased pharmacy oversight, provider education, and embedded decision support in the electronic medical record. Interventions addressing barriers noted by front line providers are needed to reduce unnecessary PPI use, and future studies should assess the impact of such interventions on CDI rates.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019

PURPOSE

To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 113 articles during 2019 according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

Articles with a 1A grade, including three clinical practice guidelines, six meta-analyses, and five original research trials are reviewed here from those included in the monthly CCPLU. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of polymyxins and antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest as well as meta-analyses on antipsychotic use in delirium, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), and vasoactive medications in septic shock and cardiac arrest were summarized. Original research trials evaluated delirium, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, SUP, anticoagulation reversal, and hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

This clinical review and expert opinion provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2019.

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

PURPOSE

Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Prophylactic use of acid suppressants in adult acutely ill hospitalised patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Acutely ill patients are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and prophylactic acid suppressants are frequently used. In this systematic review, we assessed the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalised patients.

METHODS

We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically important GI bleeding and serious adverse events (SAEs). The primary analyses included overall low risk of bias trials.

RESULTS

We included 65 comparisons from 62 trials (n = 9713); 43 comparisons were from intensive care units. Only three trials (n = 3596) had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90 to 1.18; high certainty). The rate of clinically important GI bleeding was lower with SUP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; TSA-adjusted CI 0.14 to 2.81; moderate certainty). We did not find a difference in pneumonia rates (moderate certainty). Effects on SAEs, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischaemia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were inconclusive due to sparse data. Analyses of all trials regardless of risk of bias were consistent with the primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a difference in all-cause mortality or pneumonia with SUP. The incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was reduced with SUP, whereas any effects on SAEs, myocardial ischaemia, Clostridium difficile enteritis and HRQoL were inconclusive.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017055676; published study protocol: Marker, et al 2017 in Systematic Reviews.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo-a blinded randomized control trial to evaluate the safety of two strategies in critically ill infants with congenital heart disease (SUPPRESS-CHD)

BACKGROUND

Critically ill infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) are often prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding, despite the low incidence of stress ulcers and limited data on the safety and efficacy of SUP in infants. Recently, SUP has been associated with an increased incidence of hospital-acquired infections, community-acquired pneumonia, and necrotizing enterocolitis. The objective of this pilot study is to investigate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of withholding SUP in infants with congenital heart disease admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.

METHODS

A single center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled pilot feasibility trial will be performed in infants with CHD admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit and anticipated to require respiratory support for > 24 h. Patients will be randomized to receive a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or placebo until they are discontinued from respiratory support. Randomization will be performed within 2 strata defined by admission type (medical or surgical) and age (neonate, age < 30 days, or infant, 1 month to 1 year). Allocation will be a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks to ensure balanced allocations across the two treatment groups within each stratum. The primary outcomes include feasibility of screening, consent, timely allocation of study drug, and protocol adherence. The primary safety outcome is the rate of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The secondary outcomes are the difference in the relative and absolute abundance of the gut microbiota and functional microbial profiles between the two study groups. We plan to enroll 100 patients in this pilot study.

DISCUSSION

Routine use of SUP to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in infants is controversial due to a low incidence of bleeding events and concern for adverse effects. The role of SUP in infants with CHD has not been examined, and there is equipoise on the risks and benefits of withholding this therapy. In addition, this therapy has been discontinued in other neonatal populations due to the concern for hospital-acquired infections and necrotizing enterocolitis. Furthermore, exploring changes to the microbiome after exposure to SUP may highlight the mechanisms by which SUP impacts potential microbial dysbiosis of the gut and its association with hospital-acquired infections. Assessment of the feasibility of a trial of withholding SUP in critically ill infants with CHD will facilitate planning of a larger multicenter trial of safety and efficacy of SUP in this vulnerable population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03667703. Registered 12 September 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03667703?term=SUPPRESS+CHD&draw=2&rank=1 . All WHO Trial Registration Data Set Criteria are met in this manuscript.

Effects of oral/enteral nutrition alone versus plus pantoprazole on gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with low risk factor: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Background/aim

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress causing mucosal damage. Aim of the study was to determine the effect of oral/enteral nutrition with or without concomitant pantoprazole on upper GI bleeding in low risk critically ill patients.

Materials and methods

This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study conducted with intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving oral/enteral nutritional support. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups including intervention group (received oral/EN plus pantoprazole) and control group (received only oral/EN).

Results

A total of 300 patients (intervention group: 152, control group: 148) participated in the study. Overall, 226 (75%) patients were fed by orally and 74 (25%) patients fed by enteral tube feeding. Median duration of nutritional support 4 (range: 2–33) days. Overt upper GI bleeding was noted only in one patient (0.65%) who was in the intervention group. The overall length of ICU stay of 4 (2–105) days, while ICU stay was significantly longer in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

Our findings seems to indicate that in patients who are at low risk for GI bleeding and under oral/enteral nutritional support, the use of PPIs may not reduce the risk of bleeding, however these results are imprecise because of low event (GI bleeding) rate and limited power.

Adherence to a stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol by critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol in critically ill patients at a tertiary university hospital.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, we included all adult patients admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units of an academic tertiary hospital. Our sole exclusion criterion was upper gastrointestinal bleeding at intensive care unit admission. We collected baseline variables and stress ulcer prophylaxis indications according to the institutional protocol and use of prophylaxis. Our primary outcome was adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol. Secondary outcomes were appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis, upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence and factors associated with appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled from July 2nd through July 31st, 2018. Patients were 52 ± 20 years old, 125 (53%) were surgical patients, and the mean SAPS 3 was 52 ± 20. In the longitudinal follow-up, 1499 patient-days were studied; 1069 patient-days had stress ulcer prophylaxis indications, and 777 patient-days contained prophylaxis use (73% stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol adherence). Of the 430 patient-days without stress ulcer prophylaxis indications, 242 involved prophylaxis (56% inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use). The overall appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis was 64%. Factors associated with proper stress ulcer prophylaxis prescription were mechanical ventilation OR 2.13 (95%CI 1.64 - 2.75) and coagulopathy OR 2.77 (95%CI 1.66 - 4.60). The upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence was 12.8%.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol was low and inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis was frequent in this cohort of critically ill patients.

Deadoption of low-value practices in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Change of practice in the ICU, particularly the discontinuation of approaches, which are no longer felt to be beneficial, can be challenging. This review will examine this issue and outline current thinking regarding how to best approach it.

RECENT FINDINGS

Practices in medicine that do not provide patients benefit and possibly cause harm exist throughout medicine and are called low-value practices. Some low-value practices have successfully been removed from the ICU whereas others remain. The process of removing these practices from established care is often called deadoption. Low-value practices that are simply ineffective but produce comparatively less harm or cost, may represent a significant challenge to deadoption. Additionally, although no single intervention has been identified as the preferred method of deadoption of a low-value practice, we advocate for a multimodal approach.

SUMMARY

Deadoption in the intensive care unit of practices that either cause harm or are significantly costly relative to their benefit remains an elusive goal. Attempts at deadoption should target local ICU circumstances, while still encompassing the spectrum of care outside the ICU, engage nursing more fully, promote the use of local champions, especially peers, and recognize the requirement to seek sustainability.

Enteral nutrition better than proton pump inhibitors?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically-ill patients has been a subject of extensive research, with multiple clinical trials attempting to study the best method of stress ulcer prophylaxis with the least adverse effects. Until recently, pharmacologic prophylaxis has prevailed as the primary choice for the prevention of stress ulcers but recent clinical studies have attempted to evaluate the role of enteral nutrition in stress ulcer prophylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of stress ulcers that result in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGIB) has drastically decreased over the last two decades. Furthermore, in the current era CIGB in the ICU does not seem to be associated with an increased mortality. Multiple recent clinical studies aimed to evaluate the role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients who tolerate enteral nutrition in the ICU.

SUMMARY

The results of multiple recent clinical studies call for re-evaluation of the routine use of PPIs in critically ill patients who tolerates enteral nutrition in the ICU. Despite the promising preliminary results, definitive recommendations need larger clinical trials that are powered to evaluate any added benefits of using PPI in critically ill patients who tolerate enteral nutrition given the low incidence of CIGB in the current era.

Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) infection in the critically ill: an expert statement

Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) infection (CDI) represents a worrisome condition, often underestimated, with severe clinical presentations, frequently requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The aim of the present expert statement was to give an overview of the management of CDI in critically ill patients, for whom CDI represents a redoubtable problem, in large part related to the use and abuse of antibiotics. The available knowledge about pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment concerning critical care patients affected by CDI has been reviewed, even though most of the existing information come from studies performed outside the ICU and the evidence on several issues in this specific context is scarce. The adoption of potential preventive and therapeutic strategies aimed to stem the phenomenon were discussed, including the faecal microbiota transplantation. This possibility could represent a highly interesting option in critically ill patients, but current evidence is limited and future well designed studies are needed. A special insight on the specific challenges that the ICU physicians may face caring for the critically ill patients with CDI was also proposed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Audit on Practices of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background

This audit was aimed at studying current practices regarding the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the Indian critical care setup, with the background aim of raising awareness regarding the use and indications of SUP in critically ill patients.

Materials and methods

After registering the trial with the clinical trial registry, India, a structured audit questionnaire containing 26 questions pertaining to SUP was distributed through electronic media among clinicians working in the intensive care units (ICUs) across India. Responses obtained were statistically analyzed.

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 550 clinicians. Only 197 responded, of whom 91.4% were anesthesiologists, 5.6% were physicians, and 3% were intensivists. The audit revealed that 33% respondents were unaware of the existing SUP guidelines and around 32% did not have protocols for SUP in their ICU. Sixty-nine percent of respondents felt that all ICU patients must receive SUP and 44.7% opined that it should be started on ICU arrival. Almost 94% knew that early enteral feeding is protective against stress ulceration. Only 24.9% responders agreed that there must be clear indications for SUP, and most of them were unaware of all the potential side effects. Once initiated, 43.7% respondents would stop prophylaxis when no indication was left, whereas 69 respondents would stop on ICU discharge.

Conclusion

There is a lack of awareness regarding initiation, choice of agent, adverse effects as well as termination of SUP in ICU and guidelines for the same. Institutional protocols should be in place and steps need to be taken to prevent unwarranted use.

How to cite this article

Gupta D, Bhalotra AR, Singh R. Audit on Practices of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):160–167.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.

Methods

Literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42–0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31–0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23–1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44–0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16–2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12–3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25–0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22–0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.04–2.09).

Conclusions

SUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

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.

The SUP-ICU Trial: Does It Confirm or Condemn the Practice of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis?

Purpose: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is routinely administered to critically ill patients for the prevention of stress ulcer-induced, clinically important bleeding (CIB). Recently, the value of SUP has been questioned due to the perceived decline in CIB and the potential for infectious complications secondary to acid suppressive therapy. The SUP-ICU trial is a large, randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous pantoprazole with placebo for the indication of SUP. It is hoped that this trial would answer many of the questions pertaining to the overall value of SUP. This article will provide an in-depth assessment of the SUP-ICU trial in the context of the overall body of literature in this area. Furthermore, applications for clinical practice and recommendations on the provision of SUP are provided. Summary: The SUP-ICU trial revealed no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day mortality with pantoprazole but lower rates of CIB were noted (which was a secondary outcome). Overall, these data provide important insight into the value of SUP along with other questions related to the provision of SUP such as the relationship between CIB and mortality, infectious complications, and enteral nutrition. Conclusions: The SUP-ICU trial is a landmark trial describing the value of SUP in a modern-day setting of intensive care unit (ICU) practice. The provision of SUP should be continued in high-risk patients. Future studies are ongoing that will add further insight to this routine practice.

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.

Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing stress ulcers in the upper digestive tract. Agents that suppress gastric acid are commonly prescribed to reduce the incidence of clinically important stress ulcer-related gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the indiscriminate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in all patients admitted to the intensive care unit is not warranted and can have potential adverse clinical effects and cost implications. The present guidelines from the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos summarizes the current evidence and gives six clinical statements and an algorithm aiming to provide a standardized prescribing policy for the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Effects of Gastrointestinal Function on the Incidence of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients

Objective

To investigate the effect of gastrointestinal function on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients.

Methods

From August 2012 to June 2016, 160 critically ill patients in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) of our hospital were selected as the research group; patients were divided equally into an observation group and a control group, 80 patients in each group, based on the random draw envelope principle. The control group was given a nasogastric tube for gastric feeding, the observation group was given a dual lumen gastrointestinal enteral device for gastric feeding; the two groups’ enteral nutrition observation time was 7d; any changes in patient condition and prognosis were recorded.

Results

The pH value of gastric juice in the control group and the observation group was 6.13±1.38 and 4.01±1.83, respectively: the pH for the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (t=4.982, P<0.05). The incidence of VAP in the observation group and the control group was 2.5% and 12.5%, respectively: the VAP for the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The serum levels of pre-albumin and albumin after feeding in the two groups were significantly higher than before feeding (P<0.05); the serum levels of pre-albumin and albumin in the observation group after feeding were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay in the observation group were 9.12±2.13 days and 12.76±1.98 days, respectively, significantly lower than those of the control group of 10.56±2.89 days and 16.33±2.11 days (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Obstacles to gastrointestinal function in critically ill ICU patients are common; enteral gastric feeding by dual lumen gastrointestinal for can improve the patient’s nutritional status, promote and maintain the normal pH value of gastric juice, thereby reducing the incidence of VAP through rehabilitation of patients.

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.

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole in preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, using cimetidine as an active comparator.

METHODS

A pre-specified non-inferiority limit (5%) was used to compare rates of significant upper GI bleeding in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study across 27 intensive care units in China. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability measures. Patients required mechanical ventilation and had at least one additional risk factor for stress ulcer bleeding. Patients were randomized to receive either active esomeprazole 40 mg, as a 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion twice daily, and an IV placebo cimetidine infusion or active cimetidine 50 mg/h, as a continuous infusion following an initial bolus of 300 mg, and placebo esomeprazole injections, given up to 14 days. Patients were blinded using this double-dummy technique.

RESULTS

Of 274 patients, 2.7% with esomeprazole and 4.6% with cimetidine had significant upper GI bleeding (bright red blood in the gastric tube not clearing after lavage or persistent Gastroccult-positive "coffee grounds" material). Non-inferiority of esomeprazole to cimetidine was demonstrated. The safety profiles of both drugs were similar and as expected in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Esomeprazole is effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients, as demonstrated by the non-inferiority analysis using cimetidine as an active control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02157376.