Prophylactic acid suppressants in children in the intensive care unit: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill children are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. Acid suppressants are frequently used in intensive care units even though there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms. With this systematic review, we aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in children in intensive care. METHODS: We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook, and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). We included randomised clinical trials comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors vs placebo/no prophylaxis in children admitted for intensive care. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and overt gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, hospital-acquired pneumonia, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischemia, acute kidney injury and quality of life. RESULTS: We included a total of seven trials (n = 504) with eight trial comparisons. We found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-2.37), overt gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42-1.35) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77-1.82) between SUP vs placebo/no prophylaxis. No trials reported on remaining secondary outcomes. TSA was unable to draw firm conclusions for all outcomes and certainty of evidence for all outcomes was "very low." CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in all-cause mortality, overt gastrointestinal bleeding or hospital-acquired pneumonia in children in intensive care receiving acid suppressants compared with placebo/no prophylaxis. However, the quantity and quality of evidence was very low with no firm evidence for benefit or harm.

Lactate versus acetate buffered intravenous crystalloid solutions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Buffered crystalloid solutions are increasingly recommended as first-line intravenous resuscitation fluids. However, guidelines do not distinguish between the different types of buffered solutions. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the evidence on the use of lactate- vs acetate-buffered crystalloid solutions and their potential benefits and harms. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the effect of lactate- vs acetate-buffered crystalloid solutions on any outcome in adult hospitalised patients. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included a total of 29 studies, 25 of which were clinical trials and four were observational studies. Most studies were conducted in surgical settings and indications for use were poorly described. The most commonly administered solutions were Ringer's lactate vs Ringer's acetate or Plasma-Lyte™. Outcomes included acid/base and electrolyte status; haemodynamic variables; and markers of renal and liver function, metabolism, and coagulation. Only a few studies reported patient-centred outcomes. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence for benefit or harm of either solution, and the quantity and quality of evidence were low. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of evidence on the use of different buffered crystalloid intravenous solutions were low, data were derived primarily from surgical settings, and patient-important outcomes were rarely reported; thus, the balance between benefits and harms between these solutions is largely unknown.