Cargando…

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Hui-Bin, Jiang, Wei, Wang, Chun-Yao, Qin, Han-Yu, Du, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29374489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1
_version_ 1783295917621772288
author Huang, Hui-Bin
Jiang, Wei
Wang, Chun-Yao
Qin, Han-Yu
Du, Bin
author_facet Huang, Hui-Bin
Jiang, Wei
Wang, Chun-Yao
Qin, Han-Yu
Du, Bin
author_sort Huang, Hui-Bin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, −0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD −0.38 days; 95% CI, −1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5787340
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57873402018-02-08 Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis Huang, Hui-Bin Jiang, Wei Wang, Chun-Yao Qin, Han-Yu Du, Bin Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, −0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD −0.38 days; 95% CI, −1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5787340/ /pubmed/29374489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted 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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Huang, Hui-Bin
Jiang, Wei
Wang, Chun-Yao
Qin, Han-Yu
Du, Bin
Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29374489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1
work_keys_str_mv AT huanghuibin stressulcerprophylaxisinintensivecareunitpatientsreceivingenteralnutritionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jiangwei stressulcerprophylaxisinintensivecareunitpatientsreceivingenteralnutritionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangchunyao stressulcerprophylaxisinintensivecareunitpatientsreceivingenteralnutritionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT qinhanyu stressulcerprophylaxisinintensivecareunitpatientsreceivingenteralnutritionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dubin stressulcerprophylaxisinintensivecareunitpatientsreceivingenteralnutritionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis