Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care. 2016 May 4;20(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
2
Department of Internal Medicine, United Arab Emirates University, Alain, United Arab Emirates.
3
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
4
Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
5
Department of Critical Care, Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
6
Department of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
7
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. alhazzaw@mcmaster.ca.
8
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. alhazzaw@mcmaster.ca.
9
Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, St Joseph's Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. alhazzaw@mcmaster.ca.

Abstract

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; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 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.

PMID:
27142116
PMCID:
PMC4855320
DOI:
10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center