Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods

We 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.

Results

Seventy 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).

Conclusions

For 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 registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

SUBMITTER: Wang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7190057 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Wang Ying Y Ye Zhikang Z Ge Long L Siemieniuk Reed A C RAC Wang Xin X Wang Yingkai Y Hou Liangying L Ma Zhuo Z Agoritsas Thomas T Vandvik Per Olav PO Perner Anders A Møller Morten H MH Guyatt Gordon H GH Liu Lihong L Liu Lihong L

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20200106

<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.<h4>Eligibility c ...[more]

PMID: 31907166

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeStress 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Project description:BackgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) may be a severe condition in immunocompromised patients and may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed to describe the clinical spectrum of critically ill immunocompromised patients with GIB and identify risk factors associated with mortality and severe GIB defined by hemorrhagic shock, hyperlactatemia and/or the transfusion of more than 5 red blood cells units. Finally, we compared this cohort with a control population of non-immunocompromised admitted in ICU for GIB.ResultsRetrospective study in 3 centers including immunocompromised patients with GIB admitted in ICU from January, 1st 2010 to December, 31rd 2019. Risk factors for mortality and severe GIB were assessed by logistic regression. Immunocompromised patients were matched with a control group of patients admitted in ICU with GIB. A total of 292 patients were analyzed in the study, including 141 immunocompromised patients (compared to a control group of 151 patients). Among immunocompromised patients, upper GIB was more frequent (73%) than lower GIB (27%). By multivariate analysis, severe GIB was associated with male gender (OR 4.48, CI95% 1.75-11.42, p = 0.00), upper GIB (OR 2.88, CI95% 1.11-7.46, p = 0.03) and digestive malignant infiltration (OR 5.85, CI95% 1.45-23.56, p = 0.01). Conversely, proton pump inhibitor treatment before hospitalization was significantly associated with decreased risk of severe GIB (OR 0.25, IC95% 0.10-0.65, p < 0.01). Fifty-four patients (38%) died within 90 days. By multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with hemorrhagic shock (OR 2.91, IC95% 1.33-6.38, p = 0 .01), upper GIB (OR 4.33, CI95% 1.50-12.47, p = 0.01), and long-term corticosteroid therapy before admission (OR 2.98, CI95% 1.32-6.71, p = 0.01). Albuminemia (per 5 g/l increase) was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.54, IC95% 0.35-0.84, p = 0.01). After matching with a control group of non-immunocompromised patients, severity of bleeding was increased in immunocompromised patients, but mortality was not different between the 2 groups.ConclusionMortality is high in immunocompromised patients with GIB in ICU, especially in patients receiving long term corticosteroids. Mortality of GIB is not different from mortality of non-immunocompromised patients in ICU. The prophylactic administration of proton pump inhibitors should be considered in this population.

Project description:AimTo compare the safety and effects of unrestricted visiting policies (UVPs) and restricted visiting policies (RVPs) in intensive care units (ICUs) with respect to outcomes related to delirium, infection, and mortality.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBMdisc, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database records generated from their inception to 22 January 2022 were searched. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. The main outcomes investigated were delirium, ICU-acquired infection, ICU mortality, and length of ICU stay. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Random‑effects and fixed-effects meta‑analyses were conducted to obtain pooled estimates, due to heterogeneity. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The results were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs).ResultsEleven studies including a total of 3741 patients that compared UVPs and RVPs in ICUs were included in the analyses. Random effects modeling indicated that UVPs were associated with a reduced incidence of delirium (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.25-0.63, I2 = 71%, p = 0.0005). Fixed-effects modeling indicated that UVPs did not increase the incidences of ICU-acquired infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.71-1.30, I2 = 0%, p = 0.49), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52-1.80, I2 = 0%, p = 0.55), and catheter-related blood stream infection (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.72-1.84, I2 = 0%, p = 0.66), or ICU mortality (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28, I2 = 49%, p = 0.12). Forest plotting indicated that UVPs could reduce the lengths of ICU stays (SMD = - 0.97, 95% CI - 1.61 to 0.32, p = 0.003).ConclusionThe current meta-analysis indicates that adopting a UVP may significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in ICU patients, without increasing the risks of ICU-acquired infection or mortality. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these indications.

Project description:BackgroundIntolerance to gastric feeding tubes is common among critically ill adults and may increase morbidity. Administration of prokinetics in the ICU is common. However, the efficacy and safety of prokinetics are unclear in critically ill adults with gastric feeding tubes. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for improving gastric feeding tube tolerance in critically ill adults.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by systematically searching the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant data and assessed the quality of the studies. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of the evidence.ResultsFifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 10 RCTs involving 846 participants were eligible for the quantitative analysis. Most studies (10 of 13, 76.92%) showed that prokinetics had beneficial effects on feeding intolerance in critically ill adults. In critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding, prokinetic agents may reduce the ICU length of stay (MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.96, -0.10; P = 0.04; low certainty) and the hospital length of stay (MD -3.21, 95% CI -5.35, -1.06; P = 0.003; low certainty). However, prokinetics failed to improve the outcomes of reported adverse events and all-cause mortality.ConclusionAs a class of drugs, prokinetics may improve tolerance to gastric feeding to some extent in critically ill adults. However, the certainty of the evidence suggesting that prokinetics reduce the ICU or hospital length of stay is low. Prokinetics did not significantly decrease the risks of reported adverse events or all-cause mortality among critically ill adults.

Project description:ImportanceMigraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).ResultsTwenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.Conclusions and relevanceProphylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Project description:BackgroundCritically ill trauma patients with severe injuries are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding simultaneously. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy is unknown for trauma patients with a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis because of a risk of bleeding.Methods and findingsUsing decision analysis, we estimated the cost effectiveness of three VTE prophylaxis strategies-pneumatic compression devices (PCDs) and expectant management alone, serial Doppler ultrasound (SDU) screening, and prophylactic insertion of a vena cava filter (VCF) -- in trauma patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with severe injuries who were believed to have a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis for up to two weeks because of a risk of major bleeding. Data on the probability of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and on the effectiveness of the prophylactic strategies, were taken from observational and randomized controlled studies. The probabilities of in-hospital death, ICU and hospital discharge rates, and resource use were taken from a population-based cohort of trauma patients with severe injuries (injury severity scores >12) admitted to the ICU of a regional trauma centre. The incidence of DVT at 12 weeks was similar for the PCD (14.9%) and SDU (15.0%) strategies, but higher for the VCF (25.7%) strategy. Conversely, the incidence of PE at 12 weeks was highest in the PCD strategy (2.9%), followed by the SDU (1.5%) and VCF (0.3%) strategies. Expected mortality and quality-adjusted life years were nearly identical for all three management strategies. Expected health care costs at 12 weeks were Can$55,831 for the PCD strategy, Can$55,334 for the SDU screening strategy, and Can$57,377 for the VCF strategy, with similar trends noted over a lifetime analysis.ConclusionsThe attributable mortality due to PE in trauma patients with severe injuries is low relative to other causes of mortality. Prophylactic placement of VCF in patients at high risk of VTE who cannot receive pharmacological prophylaxis is expensive and associated with an increased risk of DVT. Compared to the other strategies, SDU screening was associated with better clinical outcomes and lower costs.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets