Prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients

Prophylactic acid suppression and enteral nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

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

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

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 1%-5% of critically ill patients experience clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGB). This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine type 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for prevention of CIGB in mechanically ventilated patients.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective, single-center, pharmacoepidemiologic study.

SETTING

This study was carried out in six intensive care units (ICUs).

PATIENTS

Critically ill adults admitted between 9/1/14 and 9/1/19 who received PPIs or H2RAs within 24 h of intubation and for ≥48 h were included in this study.

INTERVENTION

PPIs or H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes were CIGB occurring 48 h after ICU admission and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction/ischemia, thrombocytopenia, and delirium. Outcomes were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10)-codes with manual cross-reference for a hemoglobin drop, transfusion, or hemodynamic compromise to further define CIGB. Of 3873 patients, 2061 (53.2%) received PPIs. CIGB was rare but higher in the PPI group (0.34% vs. 0%, RR = 1, 95% CI, 1-1; p = 0.013); however, substantial group differences existed possibly predisposing the PPI group to CIGB. Hospital mortality was higher in the PPI group (42.1% vs. 29.1%, RR = 1.23, 95% CI, 1.17-1.29; p < 0.0001). PPIs remained an independent risk factor for mortality after multivariate adjustment (RR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.39-1.88; p < 0.0001). Rates of secondary outcomes were similar between groups except thrombocytopenia (4.3% vs. 2.2%, RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; p = 0.0003) and delirium (83.7% vs. 78.1%, RR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.18-1.53; p < 0.0001) that were higher in the PPI group.

CONCLUSION

Proton pump inhibitors were associated with CIGB; however, the overall rate of CIGB was low. Compared to H2RAs, PPIs were associated with hospital mortality. Further identification of appropriate selection criteria for ulcer prophylaxis and comparisons of pharmacologic prevention strategies are warranted.

[Clinical presentation of bleeding in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit : Organ systems and clinical implications]

Bleedings are frequent and clinically important complications in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, and-depending on location and intensity-are associated with high morbidity and mortality. The clinical impact of different bleeding entities is affected by the location (e.g. intracerebral bleedings), the severity (e.g. fulminant variceal bleeding) and the incidence (e.g. gastrointestinal bleeding) of the respective bleeding type. Therapy varies among bleeding entities, but consists of stabilization of the patient, control of the bleeding, and prevention of complications. This review describes relevant therapeutic aspects of selected bleeding complications in critically ill patients.