Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alhazzani, Waleed, Alshamsi, Fayez, Belley-Cote, Emilie, Heels-Ansdell, Diane, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Alquraini, Mustafa, Perner, Anders, Møller, Morten Hylander, Krag, Mette, Almenawer, Saleh, Rochwerg, Bram, Dionne, Joanna, Jaeschke, Roman, Alshahrani, Mohammed, Deane, Adam, Perri, Dan, Thebane, Lehana, Al-Omari, Awad, Finfer, Simon, Cook, Deborah, Guyatt, Gordon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5005-8
_version_ 1783293084706013184
author Alhazzani, Waleed
Alshamsi, Fayez
Belley-Cote, Emilie
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alquraini, Mustafa
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
Krag, Mette
Almenawer, Saleh
Rochwerg, Bram
Dionne, Joanna
Jaeschke, Roman
Alshahrani, Mohammed
Deane, Adam
Perri, Dan
Thebane, Lehana
Al-Omari, Awad
Finfer, Simon
Cook, Deborah
Guyatt, Gordon
author_facet Alhazzani, Waleed
Alshamsi, Fayez
Belley-Cote, Emilie
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alquraini, Mustafa
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
Krag, Mette
Almenawer, Saleh
Rochwerg, Bram
Dionne, Joanna
Jaeschke, Roman
Alshahrani, Mohammed
Deane, Adam
Perri, Dan
Thebane, Lehana
Al-Omari, Awad
Finfer, Simon
Cook, Deborah
Guyatt, Gordon
author_sort Alhazzani, Waleed
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-017-5005-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5770505
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57705052018-01-30 Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials Alhazzani, Waleed Alshamsi, Fayez Belley-Cote, Emilie Heels-Ansdell, Diane Brignardello-Petersen, Romina Alquraini, Mustafa Perner, Anders Møller, Morten Hylander Krag, Mette Almenawer, Saleh Rochwerg, Bram Dionne, Joanna Jaeschke, Roman Alshahrani, Mohammed Deane, Adam Perri, Dan Thebane, Lehana Al-Omari, Awad Finfer, Simon Cook, Deborah Guyatt, Gordon Intensive Care Med Systematic Review PURPOSE: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-017-5005-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-12-04 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5770505/ /pubmed/29199388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5005-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Alhazzani, Waleed
Alshamsi, Fayez
Belley-Cote, Emilie
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alquraini, Mustafa
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
Krag, Mette
Almenawer, Saleh
Rochwerg, Bram
Dionne, Joanna
Jaeschke, Roman
Alshahrani, Mohammed
Deane, Adam
Perri, Dan
Thebane, Lehana
Al-Omari, Awad
Finfer, Simon
Cook, Deborah
Guyatt, Gordon
Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_full Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_short Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_sort efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5005-8
work_keys_str_mv AT alhazzaniwaleed efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT alshamsifayez efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT belleycoteemilie efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT heelsansdelldiane efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT brignardellopetersenromina efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT alqurainimustafa efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT perneranders efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT møllermortenhylander efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT kragmette efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT almenawersaleh efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT rochwergbram efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT dionnejoanna efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT jaeschkeroman efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT alshahranimohammed efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT deaneadam efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT perridan efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT thebanelehana efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT alomariawad efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT finfersimon efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT cookdeborah efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT guyattgordon efficacyandsafetyofstressulcerprophylaxisincriticallyillpatientsanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials