Dataset Information

Prevalence and outcome of acute gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and impact of acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify trials that assessed gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients. Outcome measures were prevalence of AGI among critically ill patients; incidence of mortality among critically ill patients with AGI, and incidence of mortality stratified by severity of AGI.

Results

The meta-analysis included 14 studies. The prevalence of AGI in critically ill patients was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI), 27%-54%]; the incidence of mortality among critically ill patients with AGI was 33% (95% CI, 26%-41%). There was a higher risk of mortality in critically ill patients with AGI compared to those without AGI [risk ratio (RR)?=?2.01; 95% CI 1.20-3.37, P?=?.008). Subgroup analyses of studies that defined AGI according to European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) criteria confirmed these findings and showed that the risk of mortality was higher in critically ill patients with more severe AGI (ESICM grade III and IV vs grade II) [RR of 1.86 (95% CI 1.48-2.34), P?ConclusionAGI is common in critically ill patients, mortality in critically ill patients with AGI is high, and severity of AGI is associated with mortality. The widespread clinical use of standard criteria with a severity gradation will facilitate the diagnosis and management of AGI in critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6221717 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence and outcome of acute gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang Dong D Li Yuting Y Ding Lili L Fu Yao Y Dong Xuechao X Li Hongxiang H

Medicine 20181001 43

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and impact of acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.<h4>Methods</h4>The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify trials that assessed gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients. Outcome measures were prevalence of AGI among critically ill patients; incidence of mortality among critically ill patients with AGI, and incidence of mortality stratifie ...[more]

PMID: 30412121

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objective: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is recognized as an independent risk factor for mortality and long-term poor prognosis in neonates. The objective of the study was to identify the risk factors for AKI in critically ill neonates to provide an important basis for follow-up research studies and early prevention. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Med, SinoMed, and VIP Data were searched for studies of risk factors in critically ill neonates. Studies published from the initiation of the database to November 19, 2020, were included. The quality of studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. The meta-analysis was conducted with Stata 15 and drafted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: Seventeen studies (five cohort studies, ten case-control studies, and two cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis, with 1,627 cases in the case group and 5,220 cases in the control group. The incidence of AKI fluctuated from 8.4 to 63.3%. Fifteen risk factors were included, nine of which were significantly associated with an increased risk of AKI in critically ill neonates: gestational age [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.31, 95%CI = (-0.51, -0.12), P = 0.002], birthweight [SMD = -0.37, 95%CI = (-0.67, -0.07), P = 0.015], 1-min Apgar score [SMD = -0.61, 95%CI = (-0.78, -0.43), P = 0.000], 5-min Apgar score [SMD = -0.71, 95%CI = (-1.00, -0.41), P = 0.000], congenital heart disease (CHD) [odds ratio (OR) = 2.94, 95%CI = (2.08, 4.15), P = 0.000], hyperbilirubinemia [OR = 2.26, 95%CI = (1.40, 3.65), P = 0.001], necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) [OR = 6.32, 95%CI = (2.98, 13.42), P = 0.000], sepsis [OR = 2.21, 95%CI = (1.25, 3.89), P = 0.006], and mechanical ventilation [OR = 2.37, 95%CI = (1.50, 3.75), P = 0.000]. Six of them were not significantly associated with AKI in critically ill neonates: age [SMD = -0.25, 95%CI = (-0.54, 0.04), P = 0.095], male sex [OR = 1.10, 95%CI =(0.97, 1.24), P = 0.147], prematurity [OR = 0.90, 95%CI(0.52, 1.56), P = 0.716], cesarean section [OR = 1.52, 95%CI(0.77, 3.01), P = 0.234], prenatal hemorrhage [OR = 1.41, 95%CI = (0.86, 2.33), P = 0.171], and vancomycin [OR = 1.16, 95%CI = (0.71, 1.89), P = 0.555]. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides a preliminary exploration of risk factors in critically ill neonatal AKI, which may be useful for the prediction of AKI. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020188032).

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Project description:BackgroundExtubation failure is an important issue in ventilated patients and its risk factors remain a matter of research. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore factors associated with extubation failure in ventilated patients who passed a spontaneous breathing trial and underwent planned extubation. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID CRD42019137003.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published from January 1998 to December 2018. We included observational studies involving risk factors associated with extubation failure in adult intensive care unit patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the validity of included studies.ResultsSixty-seven studies (involving 26,847 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. We analyzed 49 variables and, among them, we identified 26 factors significantly associated with extubation failure. Risk factors were distributed into three domains (comorbidities, acute disease severity and characteristics at time of extubation) involving mainly three functions (circulatory, respiratory and neurological). Among these, the physiological respiratory characteristics at time of extubation were the most represented. The individual topic of secretion management was the one with the largest number of variables. By Bayesian multivariable meta-analysis, twelve factors were significantly associated with extubation failure: age, history of cardiac disease, history of respiratory disease, Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II score, pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, heart rate, Rapid Shallow Breathing Index, negative inspiratory force, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower hemoglobin level and lower Glasgow Coma Scale before extubation, with the latest factor having the strongest association with extubation outcome.ConclusionsNumerous factors are associated with extubation failure in critically ill patients who have passed a spontaneous breathing trial. Robust multiparametric clinical scores and/or artificial intelligence algorithms should be tested based on the selected independent variables in order to improve the prediction of extubation outcome in the clinical scenario.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.ResultsSeventy two trials including 12?660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).ConclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Dataset Information

Prevalence and outcome of acute gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Prevalence and outcome of acute gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets