ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Critically ill adults can develop stress-related mucosal damage from gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and reperfusion injury, predisposing them to clinically important stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of UGIB in adults in the ICU. DESIGN: A multiprofessional panel of 18 international experts from dietetics, critical care medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, and two methodologists developed evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guideline development including task force selection and voting. METHODS: The panel members identified and formulated 13 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and then assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Good practice statements were included to provide additional guidance. RESULTS: The panel generated nine conditional recommendations and made four good practice statements. Factors that likely increase the risk for clinically important stress-related UGIB in critically ill adults include coagulopathy, shock, and chronic liver disease. There is no firm evidence for mechanical ventilation alone being a risk factor. Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk. All critically ill adults with factors that likely increase the risk for stress-related UGIB should receive either proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, at low dosage regimens, to prevent UGIB. Prophylaxis should be discontinued when critical illness is no longer evident or the risk factor(s) is no longer present despite ongoing critical illness. Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU is necessary to prevent inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel achieved consensus regarding the recommendations for the prevention of stress-related UGIB. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.
Subject(s)
Critical Care , Critical Illness , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage , Humans , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Adult , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/standards , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Stress, Psychological/complications , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Histamine H2 Antagonists/therapeutic use , Evidence-Based MedicineABSTRACT
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.).
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage , Proton Pump Inhibitors , Humans , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects , Proton Pump Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
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.).
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Pantoprazole , Proton Pump Inhibitors , Respiration, Artificial , Humans , Pantoprazole/therapeutic use , Pantoprazole/adverse effects , Pantoprazole/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Female , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects , Proton Pump Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Aged , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/prevention & control , 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles/therapeutic use , 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles/adverse effects , 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles/administration & dosage , Peptic Ulcer/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Stress, Physiological , AdultABSTRACT
Despite significant progress in our understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis and extensive clinical research, there are few proven therapies addressing the underlying immune dysregulation of this life-threatening condition. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the literature evaluating immunotherapy in adult patients with sepsis, emphasizing on methods providing a "personalized immunotherapy" approach, which was defined as the classification of patients into a distinct subgroup or subphenotype, in which a patient's immune profile is used to guide treatment. Subgroups are subsets of sepsis patients, based on any cut-off in a variable. Subphenotypes are subgroups that can be reliably discriminated from other subgroup based on data-driven assessments. Included studies were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating immunomodulatory therapies in adults with sepsis. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov, from the first paper available until January 29th, 2024. The search resulted in 15,853 studies. Title and abstract screening resulted in 1409 studies (9%), assessed for eligibility; 771 studies were included, of which 282 (37%) were observational and 489 (63%) interventional. Treatment groups included were treatments targeting the innate immune response, the complement system, coagulation and endothelial dysfunction, non-pharmalogical treatment, pleiotropic drugs, immunonutrition, concomitant treatments, Traditional Chinese Medicine, immunostimulatory cytokines and growth factors, intravenous immunoglobulins, mesenchymal stem cells and immune-checkpoint inhibitors. A personalized approach was incorporated in 70 studies (9%). Enrichment was applied using cut-offs in temperature, laboratory, biomarker or genetic variables. Trials often showed conflicting results, possibly due to the lack of patient stratification or the potential influence of severity and timing on immunomodulatory therapy results. When a personalized approach was applied, trends of clinical benefit for several interventions emerged, which hold promise for future clinical trials using personalized immunotherapy.
Subject(s)
Immunotherapy , Precision Medicine , Sepsis , Humans , Precision Medicine/methods , Precision Medicine/trends , Sepsis/therapy , Sepsis/immunology , Sepsis/drug therapy , Immunotherapy/methods , Immunotherapy/trendsABSTRACT
Acute liver failure (ALF) is an acute liver dysfunction with coagulopathy and HE in a patient with no known liver disease. As ALF is rare and large clinical trials are lacking, the level of evidence regarding its management is low-moderate, favoring heterogeneous clinical practice. In this international multicenter survey study, we aimed to investigate the current practice and management of patients with ALF. An online survey targeting physicians who care for patients with ALF was developed by the International Liver Transplantation Society ALF Special-Interest Group. The survey focused on the management and liver transplantation (LT) practices of ALF. Survey questions were summarized overall and by geographic region. A total of 267 physicians completed the survey, with a survey response rate of 21.36%. Centers from all continents were represented. More than 90% of physicians specialized in either transplant hepatology/surgery or anesthesiology/critical care. Two hundred fifty-two (94.4%) respondents' institutions offered LT. A total of 76.8% of respondents' centers had a dedicated liver-intensive or transplant-intensive care unit ( p < 0.001). The median time to LT was within 48 hours in 12.7% of respondents' centers, 72 hours in 35.6%, 1 week in 37.6%, and more than 1 week in 9.6% ( p < 0.001). Deceased donor liver graft (49.6%) was the most common type of graft offered. For consideration of LT, 84.8% of physicians used King's College Criteria, and 41.6% used Clichy Criteria. Significant differences were observed between Asia, Europe, and North America for offering LT, number of LTs performed, volume of patients with ALF, admission to a dedicated intensive care unit, median time to LT, type of liver graft, monitoring HE and intracranial pressure, management of coagulopathy, and utilization of different criteria for LT. In our study, we observed significant geographic differences in the practice and management of ALF. As ALF is rare, multicenter studies are valuable for identifying global practice.
ABSTRACT
Background: Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments. Methods: Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses' notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center). Results: Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated. Conclusions: Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial. Registration: NCT03374800 (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions).
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to create a definition of patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding during critical illness as an outcome for a randomized trial. DESIGN: This was a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-center study with an instrument-building aim. In semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups we elicited views from survivors of critical illness and family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding which features indicate important gastrointestinal bleeding. Quantitative demographic characteristics were collected. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis to develop a definition for patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SETTING: Canada and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 51 ICU survivors and family members of ICU patients. RESULTS: Participants considered gastrointestinal bleeding to be important if it resulted in death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization. The following also signaled patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding: blood transfusion, vasopressors, endoscopy, CT-angiography, or surgery. Whether an intervention evinced concern depended on its effectiveness, side-effects, invasiveness and accessibility; contextual influences included participant familiarity and knowledge of interventions and trust in the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of critical illness and family members described patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding differently than current definitions of clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Intensive Care Units , Humans , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage , Critical Care , FamilyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare syndrome leading to significant morbidity and mortality. An important cause of mortality is cerebral edema due to hyperammonemia. Different therapies for hyperammonemia have been assessed including continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of CRRT in ALF patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria included adult patients admitted to an ICU with ALF. Intervention was the use of CRRT for one or more indications with the comparator being standard care without the use of CRRT. Outcomes of interest were overall survival, transplant-free survival (TFS), mortality and changes in serum ammonia levels. RESULTS: In total, 305 patients underwent CRRT while 1137 patients did not receive CRRT. CRRT was associated with improved overall survival [risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.99, p-value 0.04, I2 = 50%] and improved TFS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, p-value 0.002, I2 = 25%). There was a trend towards higher mortality with no CRRT (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84-1.81, p-value 0.28, I2 = 37%). Ammonia clearance data was unable to be pooled and was not analyzable. CONCLUSION: Use of CRRT in ALF patients is associated with improved overall and transplant-free survival compared to no CRRT.
Subject(s)
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy , Liver Failure, Acute , Humans , Liver Failure, Acute/therapy , Liver Failure, Acute/mortality , Ammonia/blood , Hyperammonemia/therapy , Hyperammonemia/mortality , Renal Replacement Therapy/methodsABSTRACT
To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.