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

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.

Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP-ICU trial: Protocol for exploratory post hoc analyses.

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Counter measures to minimise this risk include the use of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). The effect of enteral nutrition as SUP on GI bleeding event rates is unknown. There are conflicting data describing the effect of co-administration of enteral nutrition with pharmacological SUP, and there is substantial variation in practice. We aim to conduct an exploratory post hoc analysis to evaluate the association of enteral nutrition with clinically important GI bleed rates in ICU patients included in the SUP-ICU trial, and to explore any interactions between enteral nutrition and pharmacologic SUP on patient outcomes. The SUP-ICU trial dataset will be used to assess if enteral nutrition is associated with the outcomes of interest. Extended Cox models will be used considering relevant competing events, including treatment allocation (SUP or placebo) and enteral nutrition as a daily time-varying covariate, with additional adjustment for severity of illness (SAPS II). Results will be presented as adjusted hazard ratios for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition, and for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition considering potential interactions with the other variable, all with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the tests of interaction. All results will be considered as exploratory only. This post hoc analysis may yield important insights to guide practice and inform the design of future randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of enteral nutrition on GI bleeding.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients with sepsis at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) for patients with sepsis who have gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risks; however, the effect of SUP has not been specially studied in these patients. AIMS: To determine the effects of SUP versus no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in critically ill adult patients with sepsis who have risk factors for GI bleeding. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilised data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. We compared those who received SUP with proton-pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists for ≥3 days with those who received no prophylaxis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to make comparisons between groups with similar distributions of study variables. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7744 patients were included in the analysis, with 1088 (14.0%) in the non-SUP group and 6656 (86.0%) in the SUP group. A 1:1 PSM created 866 patients in each cohort. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with regard to inhospital mortality (22.3% vs 20.4%; P = 0.379), GI bleeding (4.7% vs 6.4%; P = 0.172), pneumonia (38.9% vs 36.6%; P = 0.346), Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) (6.4% vs 8.9%; P = 0.0.057) or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (4.2 days vs 4.6 days; P = 0.394). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill, septic, adult patients at risk for GI bleeding, SUP showed no effect on hospital mortality, the rate of GI bleeding, pneumonia, CDI and ICU LOS.

Assessment of adherence to the national stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: A cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines support the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in patients at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding such as those with coagulopathy, renal replacement therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Despite the observed benefits of SUP, its overuse has been highly associated with serious adverse effects. Objective: To assess the adherence to the national SUP guidelines in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic health records at King Fahad Specialist Hospital (KFSH), Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. We collected the data from January 1st to December 31st, 2020. Adult patients aged 18 and older who received SUP prescriptions were included. Descriptive analysis was performed to assess the adherence to the guidelines and to explore the factors associated with SUP use in a hospital-based setting. Results: A total of 424 patients were enrolled in this study. The median age of patients was 55.2 years old. Only 54% of patients were candidates for SUP. Internal medicine and surgery wards ranked the highest in prescribing SUP at 34.2% and 30.4%, respectively. The most common major criterion to start SUP was the concomitant use of two or more of these medications (anticoagulants, aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, and antidepressants) followed by using NSAIDs or corticosteroids by older adult patients aged (≥65 years) or have GI bleeding history at 43.2% and 21.5%, respectively. Conclusion: The observed overuse of anti-ulcer drugs (AUD) indicates a need for greater adherence to SUP guidelines. Areas of improvement can be implemented to ensure appropriate adherence to SUP guidelines to control the costs and avoid unnecessary anti-ulcer-related adverse effects.

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

BACKGROUND: Histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) have been largely replaced by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) despite the inconclusive evidence concerning comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of PPIs and H2RAs on SUP in real-world setting. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 19, 2021. We included cohort studies comparing PPIs with H2RAs in critically ill adult patients and explicitly reporting the outcome of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess potential risk of bias. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and only the studies with adjusted effect estimates were pooled. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen cohort studies (N = 145 149) were eligible and 11 of them available for full texts were of low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of adjusted effect estimates indicated that PPIs were associated with a significantly higher risk of GI bleeding, compared with H2RAs (8 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-3.01, low certainty). Post hoc pooling analysis also suggested that PPIs were associated with a slightly higher risk of mortality in comparison with H2RAs (7 studies, OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13-1.42, low certainty). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The systematic review of cohort studies showed that PPIs were associated with higher risks of GI bleeding and mortality, although the certainty of evidence was low. Overall, we suggest not excluding H2RAs for SUP, while further studies are essential for elucidating the risk stratification, optimal regimen, and specific duration.

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

Purpose: Recent data highlight unclear efficacy and potential negative sequelae of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Minimizing SUP exposure has pertinent clinical and other implications. This study assessed medication use and clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a practice guideline promoting early discontinuation of SUP in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Methods: Retrospective, single-center, pre-post cohort study within a medical ICU at a large, academic medical center. Adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation and receiving SUP via a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were eligible for inclusion. The clinical practice guideline was implemented on January 1, 2020. The impact of implementation was assessed via percent of patient-days with inappropriate SUP. Incidence of clinically important GI bleed was the primary safety outcome. Results: A total of 137 pre-guideline and 112 post-guideline patients were included. Comorbidity burden was similar between groups. A higher prevalence of baseline vasopressor receipt (39% vs 67%, P < .01) and acute kidney injury (56% vs 69%, P = .04) was observed in post-guideline patients. Post-guideline patients experienced a significantly lower percentage of patient-days of inappropriate SUP (25% vs 50%, P < .01) as well as higher rates of SUP discontinuation before extubation (71% vs 12%, P < .01) and during ICU stay (93% vs 50%, P < .01). Post-guideline patients observed a significantly lower incidence of SUP at hospital discharge (4% vs 35%, P < .01). No differences in bleeding outcomes were observed, though post-guideline patients experienced longer durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Implementation of an early SUP discontinuation guideline was associated with significant improvements in SUP prescribing practices. Baseline differences between groups likely explain observed differences in clinical outcomes.

Reassessing the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Antagonists in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the associations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia (NP), mortality, and length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in the English language assessing the effects of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists on patients in the PICU published before October 2018 from the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. A random-effects Mantel-Haenszel risk difference (MHRD) model was used to pool all the selected studies for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were the incidences of GI bleeding and NP. Secondary outcomes included mortality and length of PICU stay. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (4 RCTs and 13 observational studies) with a total of 340 763 patients were included. The overall incidence of GI bleeding was 15.2%. There was no difference in the risk of GI bleeding based on stress ulcer prophylaxis status (MHRD, 5.0%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 11.0%; I2 = 62%). There was an increased risk of NP in patients who received stress ulcer prophylaxis compared with those who did not (MHRD, 5.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-7.0%; I2 = 0%). An increased risk of mortality was seen in patients receiving stress ulcer prophylaxis (MHRD, 2.1%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.2%; I2 = 0%), although this association was no longer found when 1 large study was removed in a sensitivity analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in length of PICU stay between the groups (standardized mean difference, 0.42 days; 95% CI, -0.16 to 1.01 days; I2 = 89.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Stress ulcer prophylaxis does not show a clear benefit in reducing GI bleeding or length of PICU stay. Observational studies suggest an increased risk of NP and mortality with stress ulcer prophylaxis, which remains to be validated in clinical trials.

Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors Use for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Systematic Review of De-Implementation Studies.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, including those for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), are inappropriate. Our study purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use for SUP in hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases (from inception to January 2020). Two authors independently screened references, performed data extraction, and critical appraisal. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group were used for critical appraisal. Besides the primary outcome (inappropriate PPI prescription or use), secondary outcomes included (adverse) pharmaceutical effects and healthcare use. RESULTS: We included ten studies in this review. Most de-implementation strategies contained an educational component (meetings and/or materials), combined with either clinical guideline implementation (n = 5), audit feedback (n = 3), organizational culture (n = 4), or reminders (n = 1). One study evaluating the de-implementation strategy effectiveness showed a significant reduction (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.55) of new inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Out of five studies evaluating the effectiveness of de-implementing inappropriate PPI use, four found a significant reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.18-0.26 to RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.86). No significant differences in the occurrence of pharmaceutical effects (n = 1) and in length of stay (n = 3) were observed. Adverse pharmaceutical effects were reported in two studies and five studies reported on PPI or total drug costs. No pooled effect estimates were calculated because of large statistical heterogeneity between studies. DISCUSSION: All identified studies reported mainly educational interventions in combination with one or multiple other intervention strategies and all interventions were targeted at providers. Most studies found a small to moderate reduction of (inappropriate) PPI prescriptions or use.

Physicians' knowledge, attitude, and prescribing behavior regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in China: a multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative patients are at risk of developing stress ulcers (SU), which can cause clinically important bleeding. Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is widely applied to the patients in Intensive care unit (ICU) as well as the general ward, so it may lead to overmedication. However, there have been no surveys regarding SUP knowledge or prescribing habits. OBJECTIVE: Our study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing behavior of the surgeons toward perioperative patients regarding SUP and determined factors associated with low knowledge and high level of prescribing behaviors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey using questionnaires, randomly sampling 1266 surgeons on their current SUP practices. RESULTS: Proton pump inhibitors for SUP were used the most (94%); 43% used lansoprazole. Guideline awareness was inconsistent; the most familiar guideline was the National Medical Journal of China, and 46% were unaware of any guidelines. The predictors of low knowledge score regarding SUP in multivariable analysis were the hospital grade (p = 0.000), the type of hospital (p = 0.044), attendance at continuing education programs (p = 0.037), the awareness of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for SUP (p = 0.000). Twenty-one percent of physicians were high prescribers. High prescribing behavior was associated with hospital grade(p = 0.000), education level(p = 0.010) and attendance at continuing education programs (p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: We found that most surgeons used SUP, primarily proton pump inhibitors. However, surgeons knew little about the SUP guidelines, which may lead to insufficient SUP knowledge and overmedication. In addition, hospital grade, the type of hospital and attendance at continuing education programs may also affect the low knowledge of SUP. Hospital grade, education level and attendance at continuing education programs may affect high prescribing behavior.

Predictors of gastrointestinal bleeding in adult ICU patients in the SUP-ICU trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous studies of predictors of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), most patients received pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). We aimed to assess associations between potential predictors of clinically important GI bleeding (CIB) and overt GI bleeding in adult ICU patients, while considering the effect and potential interaction with use of SUP. METHODS: We included 3291 acutely admitted adult ICU patients with risk factors for GI bleeding randomized to SUP (pantoprazole) or placebo in the SUP-ICU trial. We used logistic regression models adjusted for allocation to SUP to estimate associations between 23 potential predictors and CIB (primary outcome) and overt GI bleeding (secondary outcome). Furthermore, we assessed associations between potential predictors and both outcomes in each allocation group and assessed potential interaction with allocation to SUP. RESULTS: Increasing SAPS II and SOFA scores, use of circulatory support and renal replacement therapy were associated with increased risk of CIB and overt GI bleeding; chronic lung disease was associated with increased risk of overt GI bleeding. Results for the remaining potential predictors were compatible with both no difference or increased and decreased risks. We found no strong evidence for any interaction between treatment allocation and any potential predictors. CONCLUSION: In adult ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, severity of illness, use of circulatory support and renal replacement therapy were associated with higher odds of CIB, with no strong evidence of interaction with SUP.

Current practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a surgical patient cohort in a German university hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has been a widespread practice both in intensive care units (ICU) and internal wards at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Clinical data suggests an important overuse of acid suppressive therapy (AST) for this indication. Data on current clinical practice of SUP in surgical patients in a non-ICU setting are spares. In the light of a growing number of reports on serious side effects of AST, this study evaluates the use of AST for SUP in a normal surgical ward in a German university hospital. METHODS: Between January 2016 and June 2016, SUP was analysed retrospectively in 1132 consecutive patients of the Department of Surgery of the Universitätsmedizin Greifswald. RESULTS: The patients managed with and without SUP were similar with respect to demographic data and treatment with anticoagulants, SSRI and glucocorticoids. Patients with SUP were treated more frequently by cyclooxygenase inhibiting drugs (NSAID, COX2-inhibitors), were more frequently treated in the intermediated care unit and had a longer hospital stay. Risk factors for the development of stress ulcers were similarly present in patient groups managed with and without SUP. About 85.7-99.6% of patients were given SUP without an adequate risk for stress ulcer development, depending on the method used for risk assessment. DISCUSSION: Still today, SUP is widely overused in non-ICU surgical patients. Information campaigns on risk factors for stress ulcer development and standard operating procedures for SUP are required to limit potential side effects and increased treatment costs.

Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) occurs in approximately 2-4% of critically ill patients. Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have a (diffuse) space-occupying lesion, are critically ill, often require mechanical ventilation, and frequently receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after aneurysm embolization, all of which may be risk factors for SRMB. However, no studies have evaluated SRMB in patients with aSAH. Aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SRMB in aSAH patients, evaluate the effect of acid suppression on SRMB, and identify specific risk factors for SRMB. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted across 17 centers. Each center reviewed up to 50 of the most recent cases of aSAH. Patients with length of stay (LOS) < 48 h or active GI bleeding on admission were excluded. Variables related to demographics, aSAH severity, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, provision of SRMB prophylaxis, adverse events, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital LOS were collected for the first 21 days of admission or until hospital discharge, whichever came first. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A multivariate logistic regression modeling was utilized to examine the relationship between specific risk factors and the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding in patients with aSAH. RESULTS: A total of 627 patients were included. The overall incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was 4.9%. Of the patients with clinically important GI bleeding, 19 (61%) received pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of GI bleeding, while 12 (39%) were not on pharmacologic prophylaxis at the onset of GI bleeding. Patients who received an acid suppressant agent were less likely to experience GI bleeding than patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.83). The multivariate regression analysis identified any instance of elevated intracranial pressure, creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min and the incidence of cerebral vasospasm as specific risk factors associated with GI bleeding. Cerebral vasospasm has not previously been described as a risk for GI bleeding (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.09-5.79). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important GI bleeding occurred in 4.9% of patients with aSAH, similar to the general critical care population. Risk factors associated with GI bleeding were prolonged mechanical ventilation (> 48 h), creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min, presence of coagulopathy, elevation of intracranial pressure, and cerebral vasospasm. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation within this patient population.

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

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

Impact of a multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative to reduce inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.

AIMS: To promote effective methods to improve overutilization patterns of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients and to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team efforts to reduce inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in low-risk patients. METHODS: A multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative incorporating education, medication use reviews and reconciliation, and pharmaceutical intervention was implemented in June 2018 for surgical patients hospitalized via emergency department. For the pre-post analysis and time series analysis, patients admitted during April and May were classified into the pre-intervention cohort and those admitted during July and August into the post-intervention cohort. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventeen patients were included in this study (153 and 164 in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts, respectively). The multidisciplinary program was effective in reducing overuse of stress ulcer prophylaxis and healthcare expenses associated with it. Biweekly education on risk factors warranting stress ulcer prophylaxis was provided for clinicians, and acid-suppressive therapy was removed from a preset list of admission orders. The incidence of inappropriate prophylaxis use declined substantially following intervention in overall patients (OR = 0.51, P = 0.01) and a significant decrease was primarily observed among non-ICU patients (OR = 0.50, P = 0.01). Interrupted time series analysis confirmed the significant decline in inappropriate use post intervention (coefficient = -0.63, P < 0.001). The total healthcare expenses associated with such overuse decreased by 58.5% from US$ 19.39 to US$ 8.04 per 100 patient-days. CONCLUSIONS: Our multidisciplinary team efforts were associated with improvement in stress ulcer prophylaxis overuse patterns, resulting in a substantial decrease in the incidence of inappropriate use, especially in general wards, and associated healthcare costs.

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

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill patients are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and prophylactic acid suppressants are frequently used. In this systematic review, we assessed the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalised patients. METHODS: We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically important GI bleeding and serious adverse events (SAEs). The primary analyses included overall low risk of bias trials. RESULTS: We included 65 comparisons from 62 trials (n = 9713); 43 comparisons were from intensive care units. Only three trials (n = 3596) had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90 to 1.18; high certainty). The rate of clinically important GI bleeding was lower with SUP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; TSA-adjusted CI 0.14 to 2.81; moderate certainty). We did not find a difference in pneumonia rates (moderate certainty). Effects on SAEs, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischaemia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were inconclusive due to sparse data. Analyses of all trials regardless of risk of bias were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a difference in all-cause mortality or pneumonia with SUP. The incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was reduced with SUP, whereas any effects on SAEs, myocardial ischaemia, Clostridium difficile enteritis and HRQoL were inconclusive. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42017055676; published study protocol: Marker, et al 2017 in Systematic Reviews.

The role of endoscopy as non-invasive procedure to manage gastrointestinal complications during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal bleeding is a life-threatening complication in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Despite data on increased mortality due to gastrointestinal bleeding, there is little data on the treatment of such conditions under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and on the possibilities of advanced endoscopic therapy to non-invasively solve these bleeding complications. No clear treatment in the case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support is recommended in the guidelines. METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study including 134 veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients for acute respiratory failure from 2009 to 2018 at IRCCS-ISMETT (Italy). Patients were divided into two groups according to gastrointestinal bleeding episodes and reviewed for type of endoscopic therapy. Gastrointestinal bleeding group was characterized for pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation characteristics, management variables-including amount of transfusions and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Fourteen (14) patients (10.4%) experienced upper (n = 13) or lower (n = 1) gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointestinal bleeding and no-gastrointestinal bleeding group had similar characteristics apart from higher creatinine in the gastrointestinal bleeding group (1.9 mg/dL (1.3-4.9) vs 1.2 mg/dL (0.7-1.8), p = 0.03). In 3 of the 14 patients (21%), endoscopy showed no signs of active bleeding (nasogastric or feeding tube decubitus), and no specific intervention was performed. Active bleeding was recognized in 11 of the 14 patients (79 %). No patients died of fatal bleeding in the gastrointestinal bleeding group. Endoscopic therapy was feasible, with a complete bleeding control in all the cases: five Hemospray®, two fibrin glue, two metallic clips, one combined approach metallic clips with epinephrine, and one cyanoacrylate. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation course was significantly longer in the gastrointestinal bleeding group: 19.5 (15-36) days vs 13.5 (8-25) days, p = 0.01. No significant differences in mortality were found between the two groups (all p values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Advanced endoscopic therapy during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may contribute to reducing the negative effects on mortality for gastrointestinal bleeding episodes.

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

Background/aim: Critically ill patients are at risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress causing mucosal damage. Aim of the study was to determine the effect of oral/enteral nutrition with or without concomitant pantoprazole on upper GI bleeding in low risk critically ill patients. Materials and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study conducted with intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving oral/enteral nutritional support. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups including intervention group (received oral/EN plus pantoprazole) and control group (received only oral/EN). Results: A total of 300 patients (intervention group: 152, control group: 148) participated in the study. Overall, 226 (75%) patients were fed by orally and 74 (25%) patients fed by enteral tube feeding. Median duration of nutritional support 4 (range: 2­33) days. Overt upper GI bleeding was noted only in one patient (0.65%) who was in the intervention group. The overall length of ICU stay of 4 (2­105) days, while ICU stay was significantly longer in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.006). Conclusions: Our findings seems to indicate that in patients who are at low risk for GI bleeding and under oral/enteral nutritional support, the use of PPIs may not reduce the risk of bleeding, however these results are imprecise because of low event (GI bleeding) rate and limited power.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: This audit was aimed at studying current practices regarding the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the Indian critical care setup, with the background aim of raising awareness regarding the use and indications of SUP in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After registering the trial with the clinical trial registry, India, a structured audit questionnaire containing 26 questions pertaining to SUP was distributed through electronic media among clinicians working in the intensive care units (ICUs) across India. Responses obtained were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to 550 clinicians. Only 197 responded, of whom 91.4% were anesthesiologists, 5.6% were physicians, and 3% were intensivists. The audit revealed that 33% respondents were unaware of the existing SUP guidelines and around 32% did not have protocols for SUP in their ICU. Sixty-nine percent of respondents felt that all ICU patients must receive SUP and 44.7% opined that it should be started on ICU arrival. Almost 94% knew that early enteral feeding is protective against stress ulceration. Only 24.9% responders agreed that there must be clear indications for SUP, and most of them were unaware of all the potential side effects. Once initiated, 43.7% respondents would stop prophylaxis when no indication was left, whereas 69 respondents would stop on ICU discharge. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of awareness regarding initiation, choice of agent, adverse effects as well as termination of SUP in ICU and guidelines for the same. Institutional protocols should be in place and steps need to be taken to prevent unwarranted use. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Gupta D, Bhalotra AR, Singh R. Audit on Practices of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):160-167.

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

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.