TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
AU - Alshamsi, Fayez
AU - Belley-Cote, Emilie
AU - Cook, Deborah
AU - Almenawer, Saleh A.
AU - Alqahtani, Zuhoor
AU - Perri, Dan
AU - Thabane, Lehana
AU - Al-Omari, Awad
AU - Lewis, Kim
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Alhazzani, Waleed
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding was provided by the Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation, the Critical Care Medicine Residency Program, and Critical Care Division Alternate Funding Plan at McMaster University.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Alshamsi et al.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - 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; I2 = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I2 = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I2 = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I2 = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I2 = 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.
AB - 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; I2 = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I2 = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I2 = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I2 = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I2 = 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008656029&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008656029&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/S13054-016-1305-6
DO - 10.1186/S13054-016-1305-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 27142116
AN - SCOPUS:85008656029
SN - 1364-8535
VL - 20
JO - Critical Care
JF - Critical Care
IS - 1
M1 - 120
ER -