Intermittent intravenous pantoprazole and continuous cimetidine infusion: effect on gastric pH control in critically ill patients at risk of developing stress-related mucosal disease. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2008;64:1202-1210. [PMID: 18469642 DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31815e40b5]

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis has been shown to lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates. Various agents have been studied, and the optimal strategy continues to be contested. This study evaluates the efficacy between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists. Small sample sizes and methodology flaws limited prior studies.

STUDY

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of PPI and histamine-2-receptor antagonist reporting rates of GIB and standardized intensive care outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A trial sequential analysis was performed to guard against errors.

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials of 28,526 patients with a mean age of 57.83±17.35 years and 30.82% females. In our pooled analysis, PPI outperformed its comparator (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82) in clinically significant GIB. PPI re-demonstrated significant reduction in overt GIB (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). No differences between groups was noted toward all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) or incidence of pneumonia (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.51). Duration of stay (SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.04-0.17) and ventilator days (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.01-0.04) were indifferent between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients, PPI was associated with reduced clinically significant or overt GIB. No differences in pneumonia were seen with the use of either agent. Trial sequential analysis for clinically significant GIB ruled out the risk for false-positive results, and thereby it is unlikely that future trials will affect our conclusions.

Comparison of proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), followed by histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), are the most commonly used drugs to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients through stress ulcer prophylaxis. The relative efficacy and drug-related adverse events of PPIs and H2RAs remain unclear. In this retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study, PPIs and H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients were compared using a common data model. After propensity matching, 935 patients from each treatment group (PPI or H2RA) were selected. The PPI group had a significantly higher 90-day mortality than the H2RA group (relative risk: 1.28; P = 0.01). However, no significant inter-group differences in the risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding were observed. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the groups concerning the risk of pneumonia or Clostridioides difficile infection, which are known potential adverse events related to these drugs. Subgroup analysis of patients with high disease severity were consistent with those of the total propensity score-matched population. These findings do not support the current recommendations, which prefer PPIs for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists Likely Increase Mortality in Critical Care: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is common among the critically ill. Recently, the Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) vs. Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial suggested PPIs might increase mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis to further inform discussion.

METHODS

We leveraged 2 recent systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials directly comparing PPIs and H-2 Receptor Antagonists (H2RAs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients and reporting mortality. We extracted mortality data from each study and meta-analyzed them with the PEPTIC trial using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Of 28,559 total patients, 14,436 (50.5%) were allocated to PPI and 14,123 to H2RAs (49.5%). Compared to H2RAs, the pooled relative risk for mortality was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.10) with an estimated risk difference for mortality of 9 additional deaths per 1000 patients exposed to PPI (95% confidence interval 0-18); heterogeneity was low (I² = 0%; P = 0.826).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs likely increases mortality compared to H2RAs. Whether stress ulcer prophylaxis is beneficial in critical care remains open to further study.

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.

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.

Assessment of pharmacologic prophylaxis use against stress ulcer in the medical wards of University of Gondar Hospital

Background

Critically ill patients with moderate-to-severe physiologically stressful event are at high risk of developing stress ulcers. The use of pharmacological prophylaxis significantly reduces the incidence of stress ulcer in high-risk patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the use of pharmacological prophylaxis for stress ulcer in the medical wards of University of Gondar Hospital.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design was used. In total, 234 patients were selected through simple random sampling technique. The risk of stress ulcer development was assessed using Evidence-Based Medicine Guideline for stress ulcer prepared by Orlando Regional Medical Center. SPSS version 21 was used for data analysis.

Result

The most common acute risk factor to stress ulcer was coagulopathy (18.4%), followed by hypoperfusion (9.8%). The concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (16.7%), mild-to-moderate brain or spinal cord injury (11.1%), and concomitant or recent corticosteroid use (9.4%) were frequently seen risk factors that necessitate administration of a prophylaxis. In total, 82 (35%) study participants were given stress ulcer prophylaxis, among which 52 (63.4%) were given without indication. The most commonly used drug class in the prevention of stress ulcer was proton pump inhibitors (76/82, 92.7%). In total, 43 (18.4%) study subjects were not given stress ulcer prophylaxis while there was clear indication. Patients with a long hospital stay and a diagnosis of central nervous system disorders had significant risk for inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use.

Conclusion

In this study, inappropriate use of prophylaxis for stress ulcer was common. The higher proportion of inappropriateness was due to the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis while there was no enough indication. We recommend future researchers to assess the cost and impact of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use, and the physicians should be adherent to the standard guidelines.

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.

Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.

Intravenous Esomeprazole for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Rebleeding: A Randomized Trial in Chinese Patients

INTRODUCTION

High-dose intravenous esomeprazole is the only approved pharmacological treatment for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding (currently approved in over 100 countries worldwide), but has not yet been approved in China. This study aimed to evaluate a high-dose esomeprazole intravenous regimen vs. an active control (cimetidine) for the prevention of rebleeding in Chinese patients with a high risk of peptic ulcer rebleeding who had undergone primary endoscopic hemostatic treatment.

METHODS

This was a parallel-group study conducted at 20 centers in China. The study comprised a randomized, double-blind, intravenous treatment phase of 72 h in which 215 patients received either high-dose esomeprazole (80 mg + 8 mg/h) or cimetidine (200 mg + 60 mg/h), followed by an open-label oral treatment phase in which all patients received esomeprazole 40 mg tablets once daily for 27 days. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant rebleeding within the first 72 h after initial endoscopic hemostatic therapy. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinically significant rebleeding within 7 and 30 days; proportions of patients who had endoscopic retreatment and other surgery due to rebleeding; and number of blood units transfused.

RESULTS

The rate of clinically significant rebleeding within 72 h was low overall (3.3%) and numerically lower in patients treated with esomeprazole compared with cimetidine (0.9% vs. 5.6%). Overall, the results of the secondary outcomes also showed a numerical trend towards superiority of esomeprazole over cimetidine. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial conducted in China, esomeprazole showed a numerical trend towards superior clinical benefit over cimetidine in the prevention of rebleeding in patients who had successfully undergone initial hemostatic therapy of a bleeding peptic ulcer, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. These findings suggest that esomeprazole may be an alternative treatment option to cimetidine for this indication in China.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01757275.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients may develop bleeding caused by stress ulceration. Acid suppression is commonly prescribed for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding. Whether proton pump inhibitors are more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, CINHAL, online trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, WHO ICTRP), conference proceedings databases, and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled parallel group trials comparing proton pump inhibitors to histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients, published before March 2012.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding; secondary outcomes were nosocomial pneumonia, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and Clostridium difficile infection. Trial authors were contacted for additional or clarifying information.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials enrolling a total of 1,720 patients were included. Proton pump inhibitors were more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists at reducing clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.68; p = 0.002; I = 0%) and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.59; p < 0.0001; I = 15%). There were no differences between proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists in the risk of nosocomial pneumonia (relative risk 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.52; p = 0.76; I = 0%), ICU mortality (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.24; p = 0.91; I = 0%), or ICU length of stay (mean difference -0.54 days; 95% confidence interval -2.20 to 1.13; p = 0.53; I = 39%). No trials reported on C. difficile infection.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, proton pump inhibitors seem to be more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists in preventing clinically important and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by the trial methodology, differences between lower and higher quality trials, sparse data, and possible publication bias. We observed no differences between drugs in the risk of pneumonia, death, or ICU length of stay.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECT

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prediction and prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding after cardiac surgery: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) complications of cardiovascular surgery, particularly bleeding, occur frequently.

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors that predict upper GI bleeding (UGIB) after cardiac surgery to improve prognostication and, thus, outcomes.

METHODS

The present case-control study reviewed institutional records spanning 2002 to 2005 for consecutive patients who developed in-hospital UGIB following cardiovascular surgery. Each case was matched to two to three controls for age, sex and date of hospital admission. Demographics, pharmacotherapy (including use of in-hospital acid suppression), endoscopic findings and outcomes were recorded. After adjustment for possible confounders, including Parsonnet score and demographic parameters, conditional logistic regression analysis identified independent significant predictors of the subsequent development of UGIB.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 131 cases (mean [± SD] age 68.8±10.2 years, 69.5% male, mean Parsonnet score 24.6±14.2) and 387 matched controls (mean age 68.8±10.8 years, 70.0% male, mean Parsonnet score 20.9±14.2). UGIB events occurred a mean of 10.3±7.7 days after cardiac surgery. Duration of mechanical ventilation (OR 3.01 [95% CI 1.44 to 6.28]), elevation of international normalized ratio (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.31 to 2.78]) and occurrence of Clostridium difficile colitis before bleeding (OR 3.15 [95% CI 1.19 to 8.36]) were independent risk factors. Use of histamine type 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.12]) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.32]) demonstrated trends toward protecting against UGIB after cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

GI bleeding events occurred approximately 10 days after cardiac surgery in patients with a complicated postoperative course. Significant predictors of subsequent bleeding included increased duration of mechanical ventilation and elevation of international normalized ratio; routine acid suppression with PPIs should be considered in such patients. C difficile colitis also significantly predicted UGIB, and H2RAs should be considered for acid suppression. Neither H2RAs nor PPIs were effective in preventing UGIB, although the small number of patients limits definitive conclusions regarding the role of acid suppression.

Proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been shown to reduce stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB), yet randomized controlled trials assessing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have yielded conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PPIs vs. H2RAs in the prophylaxis of SRMB in critically ill adults with risk factors for bleeding.

METHODS

Tailored literature searches of the past four decades were conducted. Outcomes measured were the decreases in rates of clinically significant bleeding (B, primary outcome of the meta-analysis), nosocomial pneumonia (P), and mortality (M) (secondary outcomes). Study heterogeneity was sought and quantified. Results are reported as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight fully published randomized controlled trials and five abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Prophylactic PPI administration significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding (N = 1,587 patients, OR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.17-0.54), number needed to treat = 39; 95% CI: 21-303 with no observed statistical heterogeneity among the relevant comparisons (P = 0.93, I2 = 0.0%). No statistical differences were noted for the development of nosocomial pneumonia (n = 7, N = 1,017 patients, OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.69-1.62) or mortality (n = 8, N = 1,260 patients, OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.84-1.68) or (and no heterogeneity was found for either: P = 0.85, I2 = 0.0%, and P = 0.96, I2 = 0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients at risk for the development of SRMB, PPI prophylaxis significantly decreased rates of clinically significant bleeding compared with H2RA, without affecting the development of nosocomial pneumonia or mortality rates. The magnitude of the beneficial effect, and its clinical relevance, now requires further characterization using cost-effectiveness analysis considering the incidence of stress-related mucosal disease-related bleeding.

Pantoprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and prevention of rebleeding

Adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to endoscopic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding, with current consensus guidelines recommending high-dose intravenous (IV) PPI therapy (IV bolus followed by continuous therapy). However, whether or not high-dose PPI therapy is more effective than low-dose PPI therapy is still debated. Furthermore, maintaining pH ≥ 4 appears to prevent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy has been increasingly recommended in intensive care units (ICUs). This review evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, and in controlling gastric pH and protecting against upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in high-risk ICU patients. The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatment of upper GI bleeding, the prevention of rebleeding, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

Prospective, randomized comparison of lansoprazole suspension, and intermittent intravenous famotidine on gastric pH and acid production in critically ill neurosurgical patients

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of studies comparing stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) agents in high-risk neurosurgical patients.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized study, critically ill neurosurgical patients received lansoprazole 30 mg suspension via NG/NJ tube daily or famotidine 20 mg IV q12 h for SUP. Gastric pH and residual volumes were recorded for 3 days and adverse events for 7 days after admission.

RESULTS

There were 51 patients randomized to lansoprazole (n = 28) or famotidine (n = 23) who received SUP for ≥ 3 days. All patients had at least two risk factors for SRMD, and 75% had a baseline GCS < 9. On day 1 of therapy, more famotidine patients had a gastric pH ≥ 4 at least 80% of the time as compared to lansoprazole patients (74 vs. 36%, P = 0.01, respectively); however, there was no difference on days 2 and 3. Enteral feedings on day 1 predicted a pH ≥ 4 (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the percentages of time gastric residual volumes < 28 ml (P = NS). Heme-positive aspirates were present in 18-39% of patients (P = NS); one patient receiving famotidine met the criteria for overt bleeding. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 17% in the famotidine group and 4% in the lansoprazole group (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery ICU patients receiving famotidine for SUP achieved a gastric pH ≥ 4 more often than lansoprazole-treated patients, but only on day 1 of the 3-day study period. Both agents were equally effective in reducing gastric acid production. There was no difference in the incidence of mucosal damage and thrombocytopenia.

Profilaxia das úlceras associadas ao estresse

INTRODUÇÃO: As úlceras da mucosa gastroduodenal que aparecem após graves insultos têm sido chamadas de úlceras associadas ao estresse ou, mais genericamente, de "doença mucosa associada ao estresse" (DMAE). São conhecidas desde a Antiguidade e apesar de relacionarem-se com altos índices de morbidade e mortalidade, esquemas de profilaxia no intuito de minimizar seus riscos, só foram introduzidos recentemente. Os inibidores da bomba de prótons têm desempenhado papel importante nesse cenário. MÉTODOS: O presente artigo é uma breve revisão sobre seu uso dentro do contexto clínico da profilaxia do sangramento gastrointestinal relacionado ao estresse.

Intravenous esomeprazole pharmacodynamics in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

A widely held belief contends that food-induced proton pump activation is important for optimal proton pump inhibitor-induced inhibition of gastric acid secretion. This study was undertaken to assess intragastric acid control with intravenous (IV) esomeprazole in critically ill patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This open-label, single-arm, exploratory trial was conducted at five university or regional hospital intensive care units in the US. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit who required mechanical ventilation and had at least one additional risk factor for stress-induced ulcer received twice-daily IV esomeprazole 40 mg for 48 hours and could continue for another 24 hours if no prepyloric enteral feedings were planned.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

D9612L00107; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00428701.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy variable was the linear-interpolated percentage of time intragastric pH was > or =4 during 24-48 hours. Secondary efficacy variables included the interpolated percentage of time intragastric pH was > or =4 during 0-24, 0-48, and 48-72 hours, the percentage of gastric aspirates collected with pH > or =4 during 0-24, 24-48, 0-48, and 48-72 hours, and time to stable pH > or =4. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled (one was excluded because of previous partial gastrectomy). Interpolated mean percentage time pH > or =4 was 88.8%, 80.7%, and 83.5% for 24-48, 0-24, and 0-48 hours, respectively. For 0-72 hours, > or =78% of gastric aspirates had pH > or =4. Median time to stable pH was 1 hour (95% confidence interval: 0.67, 2.00). Treatment was well tolerated, with no evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding. A total of 75 AEs occurred in 34 patients, none considered treatment related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this noncontrolled exploratory study, twice-daily IV esomeprazole 40 mg rapidly decreased intragastric acidity and effectively maintained pH >/=4 during 0-72 hours in fasting, critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients at high risk for stress ulcers.

The efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis among critical care patients: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors in comparison with histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis among critical care patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials that directly compare proton pump inhibitors with histamine-2 receptor antagonists in prevention of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in intensive care unit patients published before May 30, 2008.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data. The primary outcome was the incidence of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and the secondary outcome measures were the incidence of pneumonia and intensive care unit mortality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The random effect model was used to estimate the pooled risk difference between two treatment arms irrespective of drug, dosage, and route of administration.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomized, controlled trials with a total of 936 patients for planned comparison. The overall pooled risk difference (95% confidence interval; p value; I statistics) of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding comparing proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine-2 receptor antagonists was -0.04 (95% confidence interval, -0.09-0.01; p = .08; I = 66%). In the sensitivity analysis, removing the Levy study significantly reduced the heterogeneity (from I = 66% to I = 26%) and shifted the overall risk difference closer to the null (pooled risk difference, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.05-0.01; p = .19). There was no difference between proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists therapy in the risk of pneumonia and intensive care unit mortality, with pooled risk differences of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, -0.04-0.05; p = .86; I = 0%) and 0.02 (95% confidence interval, -0.04-0.08; p = .50; I = 0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not find strong evidence that proton pump inhibitors were different from histamine-2 receptor antagonists in terms of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis, pneumonia, and mortality among patients admitted to intensive care units. Because of limited trial data, future well-designed and powerful randomized, clinical trials are warranted.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A clinical guide to using intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in reflux and peptic ulcers

Intravenous (IV) proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are potent gastric acid suppressing agents, and their use is popular in clinical practice. Both IV and oral PPIs have similarly short half-lives, and their effects on acid secretion are similar, thus their dosing and dosage intervals appear to be interchangeable. The possible exception is when sustained high pHs are required to promote clot stabilization in bleeding peptic ulcers. Continuous infusion appears to be the only form of administration that reliably achieves these high target pHs. IV PPI is indicated in the treatment of high-risk peptic ulcers, complicated gastroesophageal reflux, stress-induced ulcer prophylaxis, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and whenever it is impossible or impractical to give oral therapy. The widespread use of PPIs has been controversial. IV PPIs have been linked to the development of nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care setting and to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. This review discusses the use of IV PPI in different clinical scenarios, its controversies, and issues of appropriate use.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors: an evidence-based review of their use in gastrointestinal disorders

Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcers, are very common and their prevalence is expected to rise as they are seen predominantly in the elderly. The general basis of treatment with antisecretory agents is to maintain gastric pH >4 for a substantial proportion of the 24-hour cycle. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to have the best benefit-risk ratio and have been used widely. Intravenous administration of a PPI provides gastric acid suppression faster than oral administration does. Whereas some indications for the use of intravenous PPIs are widely known, mostly for acute management of peptic ulcer bleeding, there are some controversies surrounding their use in other conditions such as stress-induced mucosal damage. There is still a need to define the best schedule for intravenous PPI administration (i.e. bolus infusion or constant infusion), the optimal time to switch from intravenous to oral administration and the choice of which agent is best. In most of the clinical scenarios where PPIs are recommended, they can be administered via either oral or enteral routes, unless the patient is nil by mouth. Since there are no head-to-head comparisons of the different intravenous PPIs available worldwide (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole), the rule might be to choose the drug with the best proven efficacy in each specific condition. Indeed, the key difference between them, the ability to reach and to maintain a threshold gastric pH, might not necessarily translate into clinically significant differences.

Stress-induced ulcer bleeding in critically ill patients

Increased knowledge of risk factors and improved ICU care has decreased the incidence of stress-related bleeding. Not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis for SRMD and withholding such prophylaxis in suitable low-risk candidates is a reasonable and cost-effective approach. Mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy are the main risk factors for stress-induced upper GI bleeding. Although intravenous H2RAs can prevent clinically important bleeding, their benefits seem to be limited by the rapid development of tolerance. The availability of intravenous formulations of PPIs makes it possible to critically compare their prophylactic efficacy and safety to different classes of acid-suppressive agents, such as H2RAs, in critically ill patients. The appropriate dose of PPI and the role of newer PPI formulations need to be further defined along with proposed guidelines for the use of intravenous and oral/enteral formulations of PPIs in patients at risk for stress-related mucosal damage.