Enteral nutrition as stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled exploratory study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether early enteral nutrition alone may be sufficient prophylaxis against stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, exploratory study that included mechanically ventilated patients in medical ICUs of two academic hospitals. Intravenous pantoprazole and early enteral nutrition were compared to placebo and early enteral nutrition as stress-ulcer prophylaxis. The incidences of clinically significant and overt GI bleeding were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 124 patients were enrolled in the study. After exclusion of 22 patients, 102 patients were included in analysis: 55 patients in the treatment group and 47 patients in the placebo group. Two patients (one from each group) showed signs of overt GI bleeding (overall incidence 1.96%), and both patients experienced a drop of >3 points in hematocrit in a 24-hour period indicating a clinically significant GI bleed. There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence of overt or significant GI bleeding between groups (p=0.99). CONCLUSION: We found no benefit when pantoprazole is added to early enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The routine prescription of acid-suppressive therapy in critically ill patients who tolerate early enteral nutrition warrants further evaluation.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for upper limb motor recovery in stroke survivors.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. INTRODUCTION: Prior reviews on the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) have shown the effectiveness of a-tDCS on corticomotor excitability and motor function in healthy individuals but nonsignificant effect in subjects with stroke. PURPOSE: To summarize and evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of a-tDCS in the treatment of upper limb motor impairment after stroke. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared a-tDCS with placebo and change from baseline. RESULTS: A pooled analysis showed a significant increase in scores in favor of a-tDCS (standard mean difference [SMD]=0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.10-0.70, p=0.010, compared with baseline). A similar effect was observed between a-tDCS and sham (SMD=0.49, 95% CI=0.18-0.81, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of eight randomized placebo-controlled trials provides further evidence that a-tDCS may benefit motor function of the paretic upper limb in patients suffering from chronic stroke. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1a.