Lower Risk of Upper GI Bleeding with Pantoprazole in Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

Karen Rosenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0001050840.25519.46

2024-09-01

Abstract:According to this study.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Deborah Cook,Adam Deane,François Lauzier,Nicole Zytaruk,Gordon Guyatt,Lois Saunders,Miranda Hardie,Diane Heels-Ansdell,Waleed Alhazzani,John Marshall,John Muscedere,John Myburgh,Shane English,Yaseen M Arabi,Marlies Ostermann,Serena Knowles,Naomi Hammond,Kathleen M Byrne,Marianne Chapman,Balasubramanian Venkatesh,Paul Young,Dorrilyn Rajbhandari,Alexis Poole,Abdulrahman Al-Fares,Gilmar Reis,Daniel Johnson,Mobeen Iqbal,Richard Hall,Maureen Meade,Lori Hand,Erick Duan,France Clarke,Joanna C Dionne,Jennifer L Y Tsang,Bram Rochwerg,Timothy Karachi,Francois Lamontagne,Frédérick D'Aragon,Charles St Arnaud,Brenda Reeve,Anna Geagea,Daniel Niven,Gloria Vazquez-Grande,Ryan Zarychanski,Daniel Ovakim,Gordon Wood,Karen E A Burns,Alberto Goffi,M Elizabeth Wilcox,William Henderson,David Forrest,Rob Fowler,Neill K J Adhikari,Ian Ball,Tina Mele,Alexandra Binnie,Sebastien Trop,Sangeeta Mehta,Ingrid Morgan,Osama Loubani,Meredith Vanstone,Kirsten Fiest,Emmanuel Charbonney,Yiorgos A Cavayas,Patrick Archambault,Oleksa G Rewa,Vincent Lau,Arnold S Kristof,Kosar Khwaja,David Williamson,Salmaan Kanji,Eric Sy,Brittany Dennis,Steve Reynolds,Francois Marquis,François Lellouche,Adam Rahman,Paul Hosek,Jeffrey F Barletta,Robert Cirrone,Mark Tutschka,Feng Xie,Laurent Billot,Lehana Thabane,Simon Finfer,REVISE Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2404245

2024-07-04

Abstract: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.).
Do Probiotics Help Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia In Critically Ill Patients? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Jie Zhao,Lei-qing Li,Cheng-yang Chen,Gen-sheng Zhang,Wei Cui,Bao-ping Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00302-2020

IF: 4.239

2021-01-01

ERJ Open Research

Abstract:Background: Probiotic treatments might contribute to the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Due to its unclear clinical effects, here we intend to assess the preventive effect and safety of probiotics on intensive care unit (ICU) patients.Methods: Eligible randomised controlled trials were selected in databases until 30 September 2019. The characteristics of the studies were extracted, including study design, definition of VAP, probiotics intervention, category of included patients, incidence of VAP, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and ICU stay. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Chi-squared and I2 tests.Results: 15 studies involving 2039 patients were identified for analysis. The pooled analysis suggests significant reduction on VAP (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% Cl, 0.60 to 0.77; p<0.00001) in a fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses performed on the category of clinical and microbiological criteria both support the above conclusion; however, there were no significant differences in duration of MV or length of ICU stay in a random-effects model. Also, no significant differences in total mortality, overall mortality, 28-day mortality or 90-day mortality were found in the fixed-effects model.Conclusions: The probiotics helped to prevent VAP without impacting the duration of MV, length of ICU stay or mortality.
Outcomes of Prophylactic Pantoprazole in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Dialysis: Results of a Randomized Trial

Joerg C Schefold,Mette Krag,Søren Marker,Anders Perner,Jørn Wetterslev,Matt P Wise,Mark Borthwick,Stepani Bendel,Frederik Keus,Anne Berit Guttormsen,Theis Lange,Morten Hylander Møller,the SUP-ICU investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000502732

Abstract:Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are considered at high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is often prescribed. We aimed to assess the incidence of GI bleeding and effects of SUP in these patients. Methods: We assessed GI bleeding in ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline (and at any time in the ICU) and effects of prophylactic pantoprazole versus placebo in the international SUP in the ICU (SUP-ICU) trial. All analyses were conducted according to a published protocol and statistical analysis plan. Results: Data of 3,291 acutely admitted adult ICU patients with one or more risk factors for GI bleeding randomized to pantoprazole or placebo intravenously once daily during ICU stay (until ICU discharge, death, or a maximum of 90 days) were analyzed. Some 20 out of 258 (7.8%, 95% CI 4.5-11.1%) and 52 out of 568 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.8-11.6%) of the patients receiving RRT at baseline and at any time in ICU, respectively, developed clinically important GI bleeding in the ICU. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the intervention effect (pantoprazole vs. placebo) in the proportion of patients with clinically important GI bleeding, clinically important events, infectious adverse events, use of interventions to stop GI bleeding, or 90-day mortality in patients with versus without RRT at baseline. Conclusions: In adult ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline, we observed high incidences of clinically important GI bleeding, but did not observe effects of pantoprazole versus placebo in this subgroup.
In patients receiving invasive ventilation, PPIs reduce upper GI bleeding but did not affect mortality at 90 d

Melissa Carroll,Nicholas J Talley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-02088-JC

Abstract:Cook D, Deane A, Lauzier F, et al; REVISE Investigators. Stress ulcer prophylaxis during invasive mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2024;391:9-20. 38875111.
Pantoprazole in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding-1-year mortality in the SUP-ICU trial

Søren Marker,Mette Krag,Anders Perner,Jørn Wetterslev,Theis Lange,Matt P Wise,Mark Borthwick,Stepani Bendel,Frederik Keus,Anne Berit Guttormsen,Joerg C Schefold,Bodil S Rasmussen,Thomas Elkmann,Morten Bestle,Bjørn Arenkiel,Jon H Laake,Maj K Kamper,Maarit Lång,Malgorzata B Pawlowicz-Dworzanska,Sari Karlsson,Janne Liisanantti,Nilanjan Dey,Heidi Knudsen,Anders Granholm,Morten Hylander Møller,SUP-ICU trial investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13436

Abstract:Background: The long-term effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis with pantoprazole are unknown in ICU patients. We report 1-year mortality outcome in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial. Methods: In the SUP-ICU trial, acutely admitted adult ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding were randomised to intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg vs placebo (saline) once daily during their ICU stay. We assessed mortality at 1 year and did sensitivity analyses according to the trial protocol and statistical analysis plan. Results: A total of 3261 of the 3291 patients with available data (99.1%) were followed up at 1 year after randomisation; 1635 were allocated to pantoprazole and 1626 to placebo. At 1 year after randomisation, 610 of 1635 patients (37.3%) had died in the pantoprazole group as compared with 601 of 1626 (37.0%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.10). The results were consistent in the sensitivity analysis adjusted for baseline risk factors and in those of the per-protocol population. We did not observe heterogeneity in the effect of pantoprazole vs placebo on 1-year mortality in the predefined subgroups, that is, patients with and without shock, mechanical ventilation, liver disease, coagulopathy, high disease severity (SAPS II > 53) or in medical vs surgical ICU patients. Conclusion: We did not observe a difference in 1-year mortality among acutely admitted adult ICU patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding allocated to stress ulcer prophylaxis with pantoprazole or placebo during the ICU stay. (The SUP-ICU trial was funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621).
Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol

Ying Wang,Diane Heels‐Ansdell,Long Ge,Sameer Parpia,Quazi Ibrahim,Deborah Cook,Adam Deane,Francois Lauzier,Naomi Hammond,Morten H. Møller,Mette Krag,Anders Perner,Gordon H. Guyatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14426

2024-04-07

Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract:Background Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients. Methods We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta‐analyses using a random‐effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Discussion This systematic review will provide the most up‐to‐date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

anesthesiology
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

Carly Boyd,Tanna Hassig,Robert MacLaren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2621

2021-09-12

Abstract:ObjectiveApproximately 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. DesignRetrospective, single-center, pharmacoepidemiolgic study. SettingSix intensive care units (ICUs). PatientsCritically ill adults admitted between 9/1/14 and 9/1/19 who received PPIs or H2RAs within 24 hours of intubation and for ≥ 48 hours. Measurements and Main ResultsPrimary outcomes were CIGB occurring 48 hours 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 3,873 patients, 2,061 (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. ConclusionPPIs 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.
Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP‐ICU trial: Results of exploratory post hoc analyses

Mark Borthwick,Anders Granholm,Søren Marker,Mette Krag,Theis Lange,Matt P. Wise,Stepani Bendel,Frederik Keus,Anne Berit Guttormsen,Joerg C. Schefold,Jørn Wetterslev,Anders Perner,Morten Hylander Møller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14471

2024-06-13

Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract:Background Enteral nutrition may affect risks of gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients and may also modify the effects of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis. We undertook post hoc analyses of the stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial to assess for any associations and interactions between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole. Methods Extended Cox models with time‐varying co‐variates and competing events were used to assess potential associations, adjusted for baseline severity of illness. Potential interactions between daily enteral nutrition and allocation to pantoprazole on outcomes were similarly assessed. Results Enteral nutrition was associated with lower risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (cause‐specific hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.19–0.44, p

anesthesiology
The Effects of Pantoprazole on Kidney Outcomes

Lonnie Pyne,Andrew Smyth,Amber O. Molnar,Paul Moayyedi,Eva Muehlhofer,Salim Yusuf,John Eikelboom,Jacqueline Bosch,Michael Walsh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.0000000000000356

IF: 14.978

2024-04-11

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract:Background: Observational studies have found an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and worsening kidney function. It is unclear whether these associations are causal. We conducted post-hoc analyses to determine the effect of pantoprazole on kidney function using data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, a 17,598 participant randomized trial comparing pantoprazole (8,791) to placebo (8,807). Methods: The primary outcome was the rate of change of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Rate of eGFR change was based on the two eGFR measures available, the eGFR at randomization and at the open label extension study that enrolled at trial conclusion. Secondary outcomes included incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) (defined by eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 at open label extension or case report forms) as well as acute kidney injury (AKI), acute nephritis, and nephrotic syndrome. Results: 8,991 of the 17,598 participants randomized to pantoprazole/placebo (51%) had eGFR recorded at baseline and open label extension enrollment and were included in the rate of eGFR change population (mean age 67 [SD 8] years, 22% female, mean baseline eGFR 75 [SD 17.5] ml/min/1.73 m 2 ). The mean duration between randomization and open label extension eGFR was 3.3 years. The placebo rate of eGFR change was -1.41 (SD 4.45) ml/min/1.73 m 2 per year. The pantoprazole rate of eGFR change was -1.64 (SD 4.47) ml/min/1.73 m 2 per year. In adjusted analyses pantoprazole had a 0.27 ml/min/1.73 m 2 per year greater decline in eGFR (95% CI 0.11 to 0.43). The odds ratio for the effect of pantoprazole on incident CKD was 1.11 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.25) and on AKI was 0.89 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21). There were 5 nephrotic syndrome outcomes recorded and 1 event of acute nephritis. Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis of the COMPASS trial pantoprazole resulted in a statistically significant greater rate of eGFR decline as compared to placebo. The clinical importance of this is uncertain.

urology & nephrology
Prevention of Recurrent Idiopathic Gastroduodenal Ulcer Bleeding: a Double-Blind, Randomised Trial.

Grace L. H. Wong,Louis H. S. Lau,Jessica Y. L. Ching,Yee-Kit Tse,Rachel H. Y. Ling,Vincent W. S. Wong,Philip W. Y. Chiu,James Y. W. Lau,Francis K. L. Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318715

IF: 24.5

2019-01-01

Gut

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:Patients with a history of Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers have a considerable risk of recurrent ulcer complications. We hypothesised that a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole) is superior to a histamine 2 receptor antagonist (famotidine) for the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in such patients.DESIGN:In this industry-independent, double-blind, randomised trial, we recruited patients with a history of idiopathic bleeding ulcers. After ulcer healing, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive oral lansoprazole 30 mg or famotidine 40 mg daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper GI bleeding within 24 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population as determined by an independent adjudication committee.RESULTS:Between 2010 and 2018, we enrolled 228 patients (114 patients in each study group). Recurrent upper GI bleeding occurred in one patient receiving lansoprazole (duodenal ulcer) and three receiving famotidine (two gastric ulcers and one duodenal ulcer). The cumulative incidence of recurrent upper GI bleeding in 24 months was 0.88% (95% CI 0.08% to 4.37%) in the lansoprazole arm and 2.63% (95% CI 0.71% to 6.91%) in the famotidine arm (p=0.313; crude HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.16, p=0.336). None of the patients who rebled used aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or other antithrombotic drugs.CONCLUSION:This 2-year, double-blind randomised trial showed that among patients with a history of H. pylori-negative idiopathic ulcer bleeding, recurrent bleeding rates were comparable between users of lansoprazole and famotidine, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01180179; Results.
Proton-Pump Inhibitors to Prevent Gastrointestinal Bleeding - An Updated Meta-Analysis

Ying Wang,Sameer Parpia,Long Ge,Diane Heels-Ansdell,Honghao Lai,Meisam Abdar Esfahani,Bei Pan,Waleed Alhazzani,Stefan Schandelmaier,Francois Lauzier,Yaseen Arabi,Jeffrey Barletta,Adam Deane,Simon Finfer,David Williamson,Salmaan Kanji,Morten H Møller,Anders Perner,Mette Krag,Paul J Young,Joanna C Dionne,Naomi Hammond,Zhikang Ye,Quazi Ibrahim,Deborah Cook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400134

Abstract: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.).
Effect of Pantoprazole on the Incidence of Aspiration Pneumonia in 130 Stroke Patients

XU Jing-cai,WANG Xue-feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1001-5213.2009.11.019

2009-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of pantoprazole on the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in stroke patients.METHODS The 130 stroke patients were divided into two groups: conventional group and pantoprazole group.And calculated the incidence of aspiration pneumonia respectively.RESULTS The incidence of aspiration pneumonia in pantoprazole group was 59.34% which is significantly higher than conventional group 30.78%(P0.05).CONCLUSION Intravenous pantoprazole can increase the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in stroke patients.Pantoprazole needs to be indicated strictly in stroke patients.
Gastric versus postpyloric enteral nutrition in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) on mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized trial

Youfeng Zhu,Haiyan Yin,Rui Zhang,Xiaoling Ye,Jianrui Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2092-z

2018-07-05

Abstract:Background: The risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is reduced when postpyloric enteral nutrition (EN) is administered compared to when gastric EN is administered in specific populations. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that postpyloric EN is superior to gastric EN in reducing the incidence of VAP in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and require mechanical ventilation. Methods: We performed a single-center randomized clinical trial involving elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. The patients were randomly assigned to either the postpyloric EN group or the gastric EN group. The primary outcome was the VAP rate. Results: Of the 836 patients screened, 141 patients were included in the study (70 in the postpyloric EN group and 71 in the gastric EN group). The patients in the postpyloric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-99.0) years old (male 61.4%), and those in the gastric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-92.0) years old (male 63.4%). The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 28.09 ± 6.75 in the postpyloric EN group and 27.80 ± 7.60 in the gastric EN group (P = 0.43). VAP was observed in 8 of 70 patients (11.4%) in the postpyloric EN group and in 18 of 71 patients (25.4%) in the gastric EN group, which resulted in a significant between-group difference (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.94; P = 0.04). In the postpyloric EN group, there were significant reductions in vomiting (12 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 29 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.65; P = 0.002) and abdominal distension (18 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 33 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.81; P = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding mortality and other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that, compared with gastric EN, postpyloric EN reduced the VAP rate among elderly patients who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-16008485 . Registered on 17 May 2016.
Risk Factors of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

薄世宁,聂智品,么改琦,朱曦

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2011.02.023

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To identify risk factors of gastrointestinal bleeding(GI bleeding) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.Methods A retrospective study was conducted at the ICU,Peking University Third Hospital.We reviewed the medical records of the patients with GI bleeding who received mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours between January 2007 and December 2009.Data of 91 patients with GI bleeding were collected,and 91 patients without GI bleeding were set as a control group.Results The incidence of GI bleeding in patients receiving mechanical ventilation was 12.4%(91/736).Logistic regression analysis showed that inadequate sedation(OR=3.728,95%CI=1.377-10.093),thrombocytopenia(OR=2.269,95%CI=0.876-5.588),and shock(OR=2.25,95%CI=1.109-4.959) were three independent risk factors for GI bleeding.We divided all the bleeding population into 2 groups according to its effect on patient's hemodynamic state: mild bleeding(overt bleeding,67 cases,73.4%) and severe bleeding(clinically important bleeding,24 cases,26.6%).The overt bleeding group had significantly higher incidence of inadequate sedation than the control group(22.4% vs.6.6%,P=0.004),but no significant difference in mortality between the two groups.The severe group showed significantly higher APACH Ⅱ score(20.5±7.5 vs.17.5±5.4,P=0.024) and higher incidence rates of renal failure(45.8% vs.11.0%,P=0.000),shock(45.8% vs.15.4%,P=0.003),thrombocytopenia(33.3% vs.8.8%,P=0.005),and mortality(58.3% vs.7.7%,P=0.000) than the control group.Conclusions Inadequate sedation,thrombocytopenia and shock are three independent risk factors for GI bleeding in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.Inadequate sedation is especially prominent in mild bleeding patients.Severe bleeding is correlated with renal failure,shock and thrombocytopenia and can be a sign of deterioration of the disease and worse outcomes.
Proton pump inhibitors: Understanding the associated risks and benefits of long-term use.

Ashley O Otto,Shawna L Stricker,K. M. Thurber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxad009

2023-01-11

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract:DISCLAIMER In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed medications. Various adverse clinical effects of PPIs have been reported in the literature, particularly over the past decade. The purpose of this article is to review published data primarily describing adverse effects associated with PPI use and to help clinicians determine which patients may still benefit from therapy despite safety concerns. SUMMARY Associations between PPIs and the following have been described: bone fracture, acute and chronic kidney disease, gastrointestinal infections, deficiencies in vitamin B12 and magnesium, and coronavirus disease 2019 and respiratory infections. For inclusion in this review, studies must have evaluated potential adverse events associated with PPIs as a primary or secondary objective. Increased risks of bone fracture, acute and chronic kidney disease, gastrointestinal infections, and magnesium deficiency were consistently reported, albeit mostly in studies involving low-quality data (case-control and/or observational studies) and subject to bias. In the only pertinent randomized controlled trial to date, chronic pantoprazole use was associated with a greater risk of enteric infections relative to placebo use; there was no significant between-group difference in any other adverse event evaluated. PPIs continue to be recommended by the American College of Gastroenterology as a first-line treatment for management of gastroesophageal reflux disease and in the acute period following upper gastrointestinal and ulcer bleeding. CONCLUSION Higher-quality data is needed to better understand PPI-associated risks of the adverse effects listed above. Until then, clinicians may consider greater vigilance with PPI use; however, the data does not demonstrate a need for wide adoption of de-escalation strategies solely out of safety concerns.

Medicine
Is it time to finally retire the pantoprazole "drip"?

Ravnit Singh,Nicaulis Gonzalez Lebron,Eduardo A Aviles,Jonathan B. Ramharack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2024.2413356

2024-10-12

Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract:KEYWORDS: There are various recommendations regarding the optimal dosing of proton pump inhibitors in the setting of upper GI bleeding. The 2019 guidelines from International Consensus Group on Upper GI Bleeding make a recommendation for using continuous infusions of PPIs in 'bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy' [ Citation 1 ]. Meanwhile, 2021 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy did not give priority to continuous infusions vs intermittent dosing [ Citation 2 , Citation 3 ]. Continuous infusions of pantoprazole carry two major disadvantages: they require a pharmacist to spend time mixing the solution, and they can sometimes hinder the administration of other infusions such as Octreotide, Midazolam, or Dobutamine [ Citation 4 ] due to physical incompatibility of the solutions (coadministration with pantoprazole would therefore necessitate yet another intravenous access line).

medicine, general & internal
Proton pump inhibitors in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: protocol for a substudy of the Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial

Brittany B Dennis,Lehana Thabane,Diane Heels-Ansdell,Joanna C Dionne,Alexandra Binnie,Jennifer Tsang,Gordon Guyatt,Aijaz Ahmed,François Lauzier,Adam Deane,Yaseen Arabi,John Marshall,Nicole Zytaruk,Lois Saunders,Simon Finfer,John Myburgh,John Muscedere,Shane English,Marlies Ostermann,Miranda Hardie,Serena Knowles,Deborah Cook,REVISE Investigators the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07589-2

IF: 2.728

2023-08-30

Trials

Abstract:Background: Critically ill patients commonly receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from stress-induced ulceration. Despite widespread use in the intensive care unit (ICU), observational data suggest that PPIs may be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection. This preplanned study is nested within a large randomized trial evaluating pantoprazole versus placebo in invasively ventilated patients. The 3 objectives are as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 in terms of demographics, biomarkers, venous thromboembolism, tracheostomy incidence and timing, and other clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 infection on clinically important GI bleeding, 90-day mortality, and other outcomes compared to a propensity-matched non-infected cohort; and (3) to explore whether pantoprazole has a differential treatment effect on clinically important GI bleeding, 90-day mortality, and other outcomes in patients with and without COVID-19 infection. Methods: The ongoing trial Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) compares pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important GI bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. The protocol described in this report is for a substudy focused on patients with COVID-19 infection that was not in the original pre-pandemic trial protocol. We developed a one-page case report form to characterize these patients including data related to biomarkers, venous thromboembolism, COVID-19 therapies, tracheostomy incidence and timing, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital stay. Our analysis will describe the trajectory of patients with COVID-19 infection, a propensity-matched analysis of infected and non-infected patients, and an extended subgroup analysis comparing the effect of PPI among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. Discussion: Prophylactic acid suppression in invasively ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection has unknown consequences. The results of these investigations will inform practice, guidelines, and future research. Trial registration: REVISE Trial [NCT03374800 December 15, 2017], COVID-19 Cohort Study [NCT05715567 February 8, 2023].
PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR STRESS ULCER BLEEDING PROPHYLAXIS IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS: A COST ANALYSIS STUDY

Rano K Sinuraya,Sharon Gondodiputro,Henni Djuhaeni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10s2.20413

2017-05-01

Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research

Abstract:Objective:Stress ulcer prophylaxis is generallyadministered for the prevention stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD) in critically ill patients. Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) are most commonly prescribed in preventing bleeding from SRMD. Pantoprazole iv and omeprazole iv are the most effective, but clinically effective is not always efficient. Thisstudy aimed to investigate whether the most efficient PPIs for prophylaxis in ICU settings.Methods:An observational study was conducted on June 2014 with comparative design by using medical records in January 2012−November 2014 in a private hospital in Bandung City. Both retrospective and prospective data collection was performed in this study. Paired t-test analysis was used to compare average cost of the drugs with significant level p<0.05.Results:The results showed average cost of pantoprazole iv 458.142 IDR/patient and omeprazole iv 575.573 IDR/patient, there were significant differences of average drug cost between pantoprazole iv and omeprazole iv (p=0.0085).Conclusion:Both pantoprazole iv and omeprazole iv were effective but pantoprazole ivhad been found more efficient.
Prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind study evaluating esomeprazole and cimetidine

Wenhui Lou,Ying Xia,Peng Xiang,Liangqing Zhang,Xiangyou Yu,Sam Lim,Mo Xu,Lina Zhao,Hans Rydholm,Barry Traxler,Xinyu Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464132

Abstract: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.
Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline

Zhikang Ye,Annika Reintam Blaser,Lyubov Lytvyn,Ying Wang,Gordon H Guyatt,J Stephen Mikita,Jamie Roberts,Thomas Agoritsas,Sonja Bertschy,Filippo Boroli,Julie Camsooksai,Bin Du,Anja Fog Heen,Jianyou Lu,José M Mella,Per Olav Vandvik,Robert Wise,Yue Zheng,Lihong Liu,Reed A C Siemieniuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6722

2020-01-06

BMJ

Abstract:Clinical question: What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial. Current practice: Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use. Recommendations: This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation). How this guideline was created: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable. The evidence: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty). Understanding the recommendation: In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Lower Risk of Upper GI Bleeding with Pantoprazole in Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Do Probiotics Help Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia In Critically Ill Patients? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of Prophylactic Pantoprazole in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Dialysis: Results of a Randomized Trial

In patients receiving invasive ventilation, PPIs reduce upper GI bleeding but did not affect mortality at 90 d

Pantoprazole in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding-1-year mortality in the SUP-ICU trial

Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol

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

Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP‐ICU trial: Results of exploratory post hoc analyses

The Effects of Pantoprazole on Kidney Outcomes

Prevention of Recurrent Idiopathic Gastroduodenal Ulcer Bleeding: a Double-Blind, Randomised Trial.

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

Effect of Pantoprazole on the Incidence of Aspiration Pneumonia in 130 Stroke Patients

Gastric versus postpyloric enteral nutrition in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) on mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized trial

Risk Factors of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

Proton pump inhibitors: Understanding the associated risks and benefits of long-term use.

Is it time to finally retire the pantoprazole "drip"?

Proton pump inhibitors in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: protocol for a substudy of the Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial

PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR STRESS ULCER BLEEDING PROPHYLAXIS IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS: A COST ANALYSIS STUDY

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

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline