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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |