Dataset Information

Association of Histamine-2 Blockers and Proton-Pump Inhibitors With Delirium Development in Critically Ill Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are commonly administered for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults and may be associated with delirium development. We aimed to determine differential associations of histamine-2 receptor antagonist or proton-pump inhibitor administration with delirium development in patients admitted to a medical ICU.

Design

Retrospective observational study using a deidentified database sourced from the University of North Carolina Health Care system. Participants were identified as having delirium utilizing an International Classification of Diseases-based algorithm. Associations among histamine-2 receptor antagonist, proton-pump inhibitor, or no medication administration and delirium were identified using relative risk. Multiple logistic regression was used to control for potential confounders including mechanical ventilation and age.

Setting

Academic tertiary care medical ICU in the United States.

Patients

Adults admitted to the University of North Carolina medical ICU from January 2015 to December 2019, excluding those on concurrent histamine-2 receptor antagonists and proton-pump inhibitors in the same encounter.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

We identified 6,645 critically ill patients, of whom 29% (n = 1,899) received mechanical ventilation, 45% (n = 3,022) were 65 or older, and 22% (n = 1,487) died during their medical ICU encounter. Of the 6,645 patients, 31% (n = 2,057) received an histamine-2 receptor antagonist and no proton-pump inhibitors, 40% (n = 2,648) received a proton-pump inhibitor and no histamine-2 receptor antagonists, and 46% (n = 3,076) had delirium. The histamine-2 receptor antagonist group had a greater association with delirium than the proton-pump inhibitor group compared with controls receiving neither medication, after controlling for mechanical ventilation and age (risk ratio, 1.36; 1.25-1.47; p < 0.001) and (risk ratio, 1.15; 1.07-1.24; p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are more strongly associated with increased delirium than proton-pump inhibitors. Prospective studies are necessary to further elucidate this association and to determine if replacement of histamine-2 receptor antagonists with proton-pump inhibitors in ICUs decreases the burden of delirium in critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Shiddapur A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR)?=?0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42-0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.36-0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31-0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23-1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR?=?0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16-2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12-3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22-0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR?=?0.27; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09).ConclusionsSUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples

Project description:Social determinants of health may affect ICU outcome, but the association between social determinants of health and delirium remains unclear. We evaluated the association between three social determinants of health and delirium occurrence and duration in critically ill adults.DesignSecondary, subgroup analysis of a cohort study.SettingSingle, 36-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands.PatientsNine hundred fifty-six adults consecutively admitted from July 2016 to February 2020. Patients admitted after elective surgery, residing in a nursing home, or not expected to survive greater than or equal to 48 hours were excluded.InterventionNone.Measurements and main resultsFour factors related to three Center for Disease Control social determinants of health domains (social/community context [ethnicity], education access/quality [educational level], and economic stability [employment status and monthly income]) were collected at ICU admission from patients (or families). Well-trained ICU nurses evaluated patients without coma (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, -4, -5) and with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or a delirium day was defined by greater than or equal to 1 + Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or scheduled antipsychotic use. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for ICU days and 10 delirium risk variables (before-ICU: age, Charlson, cognitive impairment, any antidepressant, antipsychotic, or benzodiazepine use; ICU baseline: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV and admission type; daily ICU: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, restraint use, coma, benzodiazepine, or opioid use) evaluated associations between each social determinant of health factor and both ICU delirium occurrence and duration. Delirium occurred in 393/956 patients (45.4%) for 2 days (1-5 d). Patients with low (vs high) income had more ICU delirium (p = 0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed no social determinants of health to be significantly associated with increased delirium occurrence or duration. Low (vs high) income was weakly associated with increased delirium occurrence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.89). Low (vs high) education (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.97-1.53) was weakly associated with a longer delirium duration.ConclusionsSocial determinants of health did not affect ICU delirium in one Dutch region. Additional research across different countries/regions and where additional social determinants of health are considered is needed to define the association between social determinants of health and ICU delirium.