DOCSLIB.ORG

Updates in Stress-Ulcer Prophylaxis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Updates in Stress-Ulcer Prophylaxis Updatesinstressulcerprophylaxis:Is pharmacologicalprophylaxisstill indicated? RubenDVillanueva,PharmD,BCCCP,BCPS Assistantprofessor OUHSCCollegeofPharmacy TraumaCriticalCare OUMedicalCenter 1 Objectives • Describethepathophysiologyofstressulcersinthe criticallyill • Compareandcontrastcurrentstressulcerprophylaxis guidelines • Summarizerecentstressulcerprophylaxisliterature • Determineacriticallyillpatient’scontinuedneedfor stressulcerprophylaxis 2 PreͲAssessment Whichofthefollowingistheunderlying pathophysiologicprocessforthedevelopmentof stressulcersintheICU? A) GIhypoperfusion B) Anemia C) Infection D) Hypersecretorystate 3 PreͲAssessment Whichofthefollowinghavebeenidentifiedas independentriskfactorsforclinicallysignificantGI bleedingincriticallyillpatients? A) Sepsis B) Organtransplant C) Vasoactivemedications D) Renalreplacementtherapy 4 PreͲAssessment Enteralnutritionwouldlikelybesufficientforstress ulcerprophylaxisinwhichofthefollowingscenarios? A) Mechanicallyventilatedpatientreceivingcontinuous renalreplacementtherapywithanINRof2 B) MechanicallyventilatedTBIpatientwithout intracranialhypertension C) Mechanicallyventilatedpatientwithchronicliverand kidneydisease,COPD,andreceivingcorticosteroids D) Mechanicallyventilatedpatientwithoutsignificant PMH,anINRof1.9andonnorepinephrine 5 UpdatesinStressUlcerProphylaxis BACKGROUND& PATHOPHYSIOLOGY 6 Background Stressrelatedmucosaldisease/damage • Representsacontinuum – Asymptomaticsuperficiallesionstoclinically significantGIbleeding(GIB) • Twotypes – Stressrelatedinjury – Stressulcers • EXCLUDES varicealbleeding StressͲrelatedmucosalbleeding Occult Guaiac+stoolorgastricaspirate Overt(OB) Hematemesis,hematochezia,melena Overt PLUS ш1:hemodynamicchanges, Clinically important(CIB) needfortransfusion,orљHgb >2g/dL Plummer,M.P.,Blaser,A.R.,&Deane,A.M.(2014).Stressulceration:prevalence,pathology,andassociationwithadverseoutcomes.CriticalCare,18(213),1Ͳ 7. 7 Fennerty,M.B.(2002).Pathophysiologyoftheuppergastrointestinaltractinthecriticallyillpatient:Rationaleforthetherapeutic benefitsofacidsuppression.Crit CareMed,30,S351Ͳ S355. Background • Asymptomaticerosions(± occultbleeding) – Presentin74– 100%ofcriticallyillpatientswithin 72hrofadmissiontotheICUbasedonendoscopy • Ratesofovertandclinicallysignificantbleeding depend onhowtheyaredefined – 2001reviewsuggestedovertbleedingmayoccurin ч25%ofICUpatientswithout pharmacologicSUP – OverallincidenceofclinicallysignificantGIbleeding inpatientswithout pharmacologicSUPreportedat3 –4%(0.6–5%) Mutlu,G.M.,Mutlu,E.A.,&Factor,P.(2001).GIComplicationsinPatientsReceivingMechanicalVentilation.CHEST,119,1222Ͳ 1241. Bardou,M.,Quenot,J.ͲP.,&Barkun,A.(2015).StressͲrelatedmucosaldiseaseinthecriticallyillpatient.NatRevGastroenterolHepatol,12,98Ͳ 107. 8 Plummer,M.P.,Blaser,A.R.,&Deane,A.M.(2014).Stressulceration:prevalence,pathology,andassociationwithadverseoutcomes.CriticalCare,18(213),1Ͳ 7. Background • Mortalityvariesbypopulation – Combineddatafrom2largestudies(N=1666)of mechanicallyventilated(MV)patients • Attributablemortalityofclinicallyimportantbleeding – Absoluterisk:20– 30% – Relativerisk(vsnoCIB):1–4 – Recentdatareported55.6%90dmortalityw/CIB Cook,D.J.,Griffith,L.,Walter,S.D.,Guyatt,G.,O'Meade,M.,Heyland,D.,...Tryba,M.(2001).Theattributablemortalityandlengthof intesive careunitstayofclinicallyimportantgastrointestinalbleedingincriticallyillpatients.CriticalCare,5(6),368Ͳ 375. Krag,M.,Perner,A.,Wetterslev,J.,Wise,M.P.,Borthwick,M.,Bendel,S.,...Moller,M.H.(2015).Prevalenceandoutcomeof 9 gastrointestinalbleedinganduseofacidsuppressantsina cutelyilladultintensivecarepatients.IntensiveCareMed,41,833Ͳ 845. CriticalIllness јCatecholamines Shockorhypotension Hypovolemia Proinflammatory јVasoconstricƟon љCardiacoutput cytokinerelease Splanchnicandmucosal hypoperfusion љHCO3Ͳ љMucosal љProtecƟve AcidbackͲ љGIMoƟlity secretion bloodflow factors,i.e HSP,TFF diffusion Mucosalvulnerability GastricAcid AcuteStressulcer 10 Bardou,M.,Quenot,J.ͲP.,&Barkun,A.(2015).StressͲrelatedmucosaldiseaseinthecriticallyillpatient.NatRevGastroenterolHepatol,12,98Ͳ 107. Buendgens,L.,Koch,A.,&Tacke,F.(2016).PreventionofstressͲulcerbleedingattheintensivescareunit:Risksandbenefitsofstressulcerprophylaxis.WorldJCrit CareMed,5(1),57Ͳ 64. UpdatesinStressUlcerProphylaxis RISKFACTORS 11 Cooketal.,1994†RiskFactors Simonsetal.,1995‡ Cooketal.,1999† Design MCPro Obs (N=2252) Retro. (N=33,637) MCPro. RCT (N =1077) 60±15 years PolyͲtrauma Age~60years 17.4% onMV No breakdownof 100%onMV Patients 48.5%CVsurgery patientcharacteristics ~60%medical TBI <2.5% *EXCLUDEDburns* ~22% emerg.surgery Encouraged withholding SUP Ranitidine:50mg IVq8hr Intervent. EXCEPT certainpopulations N/A 30%onSUP Sucral:1gmPTq6hr CIB†:OBplusш1within24hrofonsetofbleeding(absentothercauses):љSBPby GIB 20mmHg,љSBPby10mmHgorјHRby20bpmonsiƫngup;љHgb >2mg/dL plus Definitions tx;tx afterwhichtheHgb didnotrisebynumberunitstx’d minus2mg/dL Severestressulcer/CIB‡:perforationorbleedingrequiring>2unitstx’d Mortality (%)9vs.48.5 Mortalityw/GIB(%)25 ICUmort.(%)19vs. 36.7 GIB:14±12dafteradmit GIB: 51%ч14dpinjury GIB:median3d(2–6d) Outcomes OB:4.4% o 40%onH2RA OB:4.7%(3.4–6) o 95%CI3.6–5.6% o 25%diet/gastricEN CIB:2.6%(1.6–3.6) CIB:1.5% OB:0.17% o 95%CI1–2.1% CIB:0.05% MC=multicenter,Pro=prospective,Obs = observational,Retro=restrospecitve,RCT=randomizedcontrolledtrial MV=mechanicalventliation,CV=cardiovascular,TBI=traumaticbraininjury GIB=gastrointestinalbleeding,OB=overtbleedingCIB=clinicallyimportantbleeding,tx =transfusion *Certainpopulations=TBI,burnsw/BSA>30%,pepticulcerdisease/gastritis,recentGIB,organtransplant 12 Cooketal.,1994* Simonsetal.,1995** Cooketal.,1999* Risk Univariate (OR) Univariate (RR) Univariate (RR) Factor HOTN: 25.5 TS<13:2.8 Plt <50k2.58(1.19– 5.57) CIB* Sepsis:7.3 AISheadш3:4.8 MaxScr 1.19(1.06– 1.35) GIB** Liverfx:6.5 >2Organfxs:49.4 MaxMOD1.11(1.01– 1.21) Renalfx:4.6 ARDS:30.1 RenalMOD1.46(1.14– 1.87) Steroids:3.7 RenalFx:45.5 Hep MOD1.37(1.04– 1.77) Organtxp:3.6 Liverfx:51 EN0.35(0.16– 0.76) Anticoagulationtx:3.3 Coagulopathy:26.3 H2RA0.4(0.18– 0.89) EN 3.8 Pneumonia20.4 Otherinfx:23.3 Independent (OR) Independent (OR) Independent (RR) MV>48hr:15.6 SCI:2 MaxScr 1.16(1.02– 1.32) Coagulopathy:4.3 ISSш16:12.6 EN0.3(0.13– 0.67) Age>55:2.5 H2RA0.39(0.17– 0.83) ***31/33CIBshadMV orcoagulopathy*** ***ALLCIBhadeitherSCI ***22/33CIBsw/BOTH orISSш16*** MVand coagulopathy*** ***2/1405CIBswith neither MVor coagulopathy*** OR=oddsratio,RR=relativerisk,txp =transplant,ACanticoagulant, tx =treatment,TS=truama score,AIS=abbreviatedinjuryseverity score,fx =failure,SCI=spinalcord,ISS=injuryseverityscore,MOD=multiͲorgandysfunctionscore,EN=enteralnutrition 13 RiskFactors:2000s All(N=1034) ͲCIB(N=1007) +CIB(N=27) P Age, median(IQR) 63(48– 74) 64(48– 75) 58(51– 70) 0.324 SOFA,median(IQR) 6(4–8)6(4Ͳ 8) 10(7– 14) <0.001 Coagulop.atadmission, % 12.4 11.7 37 <0.001 Comorbidities, % 0 48.5 4.9 18.5 0.002 1 30.8 30.6 37 0.474 2 14.8 14.6 22.2 0.271 3 4.4 4.1 18.5 0.005 >3 1.5 1.5 3.7 0.347 Mechanical vent.atadmit, % 52.6 52.3 63 0.275 Circ.supportatadmit, % 45.4 44.7 70.3 0.009 RRTatadmit,% 6.8 6.1 33.3 <0.001 90dMortality, % 26.2 25.4 55.6 ͲͲ CIB=clinicallyimportantbleedingSOFA=sequential organfailureassessment,Coagulop =coagulopathy,Circ support= circulatorysupport(i.e.vasoactiveinfusions),RRT=renalreplacementtherapy Krag,M.,Perner,A.,Wetterslev,J.,Wise,M.P.,Borthwick,M.,Bendel,S.,...Moller,M.H.(2015).Prevalenceandoutcomeofgastrointestinalbleedingand 14 useofacidsuppressantsina cutelyilladultintensivecarepatients.IntensiveCareMed,41,833Ͳ 845. RiskFactors:2000s GI bleedingdefinitionsandoutcomes Overtbleeding(OB) ш1ofthefollowing:hematemesis,coffeeground emesis,melena,hematochezia,bloodyNGaspirate Clinicallyimportant bleeding(CIB) OBplusш1ofthefollowingwithin24hrofOBinthe absenceofothercauses:љBPш20mmHg,start of/increaseofvasopressorш20%,љHgb ш2g/dl,tx ш2unitsRBCsduringbleedingepisode Acid suppressiontherapy atadmit, % 37.4 PPI,%55 H2RA,%17 MediantimetoGIB,days(IQR) 3 (2–6) 21/27ч7dofICUstay OB(49/1034),%(95%CI) 4.7 (3.4Ͳ6) CIB(27/1034),%(95%CI) 2.6(1.6 – 3.6) ***27/27 receivingSUPattimeofbleed*** 90dMortality andCIB,% 55.6 OR 3.72(1.72 – 8.04) aOR 1.70 (0.68– 4.28) 15 Krag,M.,Perner,A.,Wetterslev,J.,Wise,M.P.,Borthwick,M.,Bendel,S.,...Moller,M.H.(2015).Prevalenceandoutcomeofgastrointestinalbleedinganduseofacidsuppressantsina cutelyilladultintensivecarepatients.IntensiveCareMed,41,833Ͳ 845. RiskFactors:2000s Risk Factor OvertGIBleeding(aOR) CIB(aOR) SOFAscore 1.25(1.14–1.38) 1.37(1.22–1.55) Chronicliverdisease* 4.51(2.30–8.86) 7.64(3.32–17.57) Coagulopathy* 2.64(1.29–5.42) 4.22(1.74–10.23) Comorbidities 1 2.51(1.15–5.46) 3.03(1.00–9.25) 2 2.80(1.17–6.67) 3.22(0.94–11.06) 3 4.24(1.31–13.72) 9.29(2.34–36.94) >3 6.66(1.22–36.42) 8.88(2.74–28.80) Circulatorysupport atadmit 2.39(1.28–4.46) 2.31(0.99–5.40) RRTatadmit* 7.35(3.47–15.56) 6.89(2.72–17.48) Coagulopathy. atadmit* 4.06(2.16–7.63) 5.21(2.29–11.83) Anticoagulation at admit 2.25(1.04–4.87) 1.77(0.61–5.16) Acidsuppressivetx atadmit 2.95(1.44–6.06) 3.61(1.28–10.20 *Previously identifiedriskfactorsforCIB 16 Krag,M.,Perner,A.,Wetterslev,J.,Wise,M.P.,Borthwick,M.,Bendel,S.,...Moller,M.H.(2015).Prevalenceandoutcomeofgastrointestinalbleedinganduseofacid suppressantsina cutelyilladultintensivecarepatients.IntensiveCareMed,41,833Ͳ 845. RiskFactors:EnteralNutrition • ProtectiveeffectsofEN – Increasedsplanchnicbloodflow – ENformulationsaretypicallyalkaline • IndependentpredictoroflowerratesofCIBin MVpatientsonSUP:0.3(0.13– 0.67) Cook,D.,Heyland,D.,Griffith,L.,Cook,R.,Marshall,J.C.,&Pagliarello,J.(1999).Rikfactorsforclinicallyimportantuppergastrointestinalbleedinginpatients
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Care and Resuscitation  Volume 15 Number 2  June 2013 147 BRIEF COMMUNICATION
    BRIEF COMMUNICATION Inappropriate continuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis beyond the intensive care setting KJ Farley, Kerryn L Barned and Tim M Crozier Stress ulceration describes injury of the gastrointestinal (GI) ABSTRACT mucosa in response to stressors such as hypoperfusion, hypoxia, reperfusion, and imbalance between gastric acid Objective: To determine how frequently stress ulcer productionCrit Care and Resusc mucosal ISSN: defence 1441-2772 mechanisms. 13 June 1 Endoscopic prophylaxis (SUP) medications prescribed in the intensive evidence2013 15of 2stress 147-151 ulceration is seen in most patients soon care unit are inappropriately continued on the ward and on ©Crit Care Resusc 20132 afterwww.jficm.anzca.edu. admission to the au/aaccm/journal/publi-intensive care unit, with clinical hospital discharge. severitycations.htm ranging from endoscopic findings only to life- Design: Retrospective cohort study; chart review. Brief communication threatening haemorrhage. Certain subgroups of critically ill Setting: Two Australian ICUs: one tertiary centre and one patients have increased risk of clinically significant GI metropolitan centre. 3,4 bleeding (Table 1), with rates of 3.7% in those with Participants: We included 387 adult, non-pregnant coagulopathy and those needing > 48 hours of mechanical patients who were admitted to the ICU between 1 February ventilation, compared with 0.1% in patients without these 2011 and 31 March 2011 and who survived to hospital 5 risk factors. Clinically significant GI bleeding should be discharge. prevented where possible as it is associated with a signifi- Main outcome measures: Rate of unnecessary cant attributable morbidity, mortality6,7 and increased continuation of ICU-prescribed SUP medications on the length of stay in the ICU.7 ward and on discharge from hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. ICU Protocol Management Cover
    ICU Management Protocols Published by Malaysian Society of Intensive Care Printed by Malaysian Society of Intensive Care (MSIC) Unit 1.6, Level 1, Enterprise 3B Technology Park Malaysia Jalan Innovasi 1, Bukit Jalil 57000 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Website: www.msic.org.my In collabration with Ministry of Health Malaysia Copyright © Malaysian Society of Intensive Care Pusat Kebangsaan ISBN Malaysia ISBN 978-967-11415-4-0 Cover design by Nabil bin Ali Disclaimer: The content of this book has been produced in good faith to guide medical practitioners. However practitioners are advised to keep abreast the current evidence-based practices that are constantly evolving and to take into account the local issues and limitations. Foreword There are many aspects in the care and management of the critically ill patient. As clinicians we need to keep abreast with the most current evidence-based practices to ensure optimal patient care and safety. This is an update of the management protocol book written in 2012, to facilitate clinicians in the management of the critically ill. Each protocol was developed with careful consideration of current evidence as well as the practical application and cost containment within our institutions. The algorithms in the protocols are simple to use and can be easily implemented. There are great concerns on the rise of multi-drug resistant organisms. We know that critically ill patients are at high risk of acquiring infections. To address this, a protocol on prevention and control of multi-drug organisms is included. This protocol materialised due to the many hours of discussion and exchange of opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • In Haemorrhagic Shock Induced Gastric Lesions
    Gut: first published as 10.1136/gut.29.6.826 on 1 June 1988. Downloaded from Gut, 1988, 29, 826-829 Ranitidine and oxygen derived free radical scavengers in haemorrhagic shock induced gastric lesions E C TSIMOYIANNIS, C J SARROS, J C TSIMOYIANNIS, K MOUTESIDOU, G AKALESTOS, AND 0 B KOTOULAS From the Department ofSurgery, G Hatzikosta General Hospital ofIoannina and Department ofAnatomy, loannina University Medical School, loannina, Greece SUMMARY The role of oxygen derived free radicals in gastric lesions induced by haemorrhagic shock and the protective effect of oxygen radical scavengers, allopurinol and ranitidine, were investigated. Forty five rabbits underwent haemorrhagic shock for 30 minutes and reinfusion ofshed blood. They were killed 30 minutes later. The animals were divided in five groups: A (n=10): Control, B (n=10): intravenous ranitidine pretreatment, C (n=10): oral allopurinol, 24 and 2 h before surgery, D (n= 10): intravenous pretreatment with superoxide Dismutase plus catalase, E (n=5): 60 minute haemorrhagic shock without reinfusion and treatment. Erosions and/or petechiae in all animals in Group A were observed. Three animals in group B and C and 2 in group D (p<0O005, p<0-001) had gastric lesions. The lesions in the pretreatment groups were significantly smaller than in controls. Oxygen radicals plus HCI play an important role in shock induced gastric lesions. Oxygen radical antagonists show a significant protective role. http://gut.bmj.com/ Clinical and experimental studies have shown that the role of oxygen derived free radicals in haemorr- haemorrhagic shock often is followed by rapid hagic shock induced gastric lesions and the protective development of gastric mucosal lesions.' 3 Gastric effect of oxygen radical scavengers, allopurinol (a blood flow is considerably reduced during haemorr- xanthine oxidase inhibitor) and ranitidine (an H2 on October 6, 2021 by guest.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (197Kb)
    Idanosa and Kahn Critical Care 2012, 16:305 http://ccforum.com/content/16/1/305 JOURNAL CLUB CRITIQUE Beyond checklists: Using clinician prompts to achieve meaningful ICU quality improvement Osamudiamen Idahosa1 and Jeremy M Kahn*1-3 University of Pittsburgh Department of Critical Care Medicine: Evidence-Based Medicine Journal Club, edited by Sachin Yende Expanded abstract hospital mortality, ICU length of stay and ventilator Citation associated pneumonia. Weiss CH, Moazed F, McEvoy CA, et al. Prompting physicians to address a daily checklist and process of care Results and clinical outcomes: a single-site study. Am J Respir One hundred and forty prompted group patients were Crit Care Med 2011, 184:680-686. Epub 2011 May 26. compared with 125 concurrent control patients and 1283 PubMed PMID: 21616996. pre-intervention patients. Compared with control patients, patients admitted to the service with prompting Background experienced increased ventilator-free days, decreased Checklists may reduce errors of omission for critically ill empirical antibiotic and central venous catheter duration, patients. and increased rates of deep vein thrombosis and stress ulcer prophylaxis. Prompted group patients had lower Methods risk-adjusted ICU mortality compared with the control Objective: To determine whether prompting to use a group (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confi dence interval, 0.13– checklist improves process of care and clinical outcomes. 0.96; P = 0.041) and lower hospital mortality compared Design: Prospective, concurrently-controlled cohort study with the control group (10.0 vs. 20.8%; P = 0.014), which with additional historical controls. remained signifi cant after risk adjustment (adjusted odds Setting: Medical intensive Care Unit (MICU) of a tertiary ratio, 0.34; 95% confi dence interval, 0.15–0.76; P = 0.008).
    [Show full text]
  • Severe Legionnaire's Disease Requiring Intensive Care Treatment
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Erasmus University Digital Repository I‘he Netherlands JOURNALOF MEDICINE ELSEVTER NetherlandsJournal of Medicine 4Y (I 996) I Y6620 I Original article Severe Legionnaire’s disease requiring intensive care treatment I.C. van Riemsdijk-van Overbeeke s’, B. van den Berg ’ Abstract Bwkgwund: Legionnaire’s disease is well known as severe pneumonia requiring intensive care treatment in many cases. In this study the clinical course is described of patients admitted to the medical ICU of the University Hospital of Rotterdam for respiratory distress due to Legionnaire’s disease. Methods: From the register of admissions to the medical ICU all patients suffering from Legionnaire’s disease were identified. All data on clinical signs and symptoms present on admission were collected. The circumstances in which the infections were contracted were sought, as well as the tests establishing the diagnosis. The occurrence of various organ failures and complications were noted, as were the causes of death on the KU. Resdts: From 1978 till 1995 the diagnosis of Legionellu pneumonia was made in I7 patients admitted to the ICU: in I3 patients a community-acquired infection was established. As in I2 patients Legionnaire‘s disease was diagnosed on serological tests, it took several weeks before the diagnosis could be established in these patients. In all patients the circumstances predisposing to Legionnaire’s disease were noted. Respiratory distress was present in all patients, ventilatory support was required in 14. Apart from this, both profound shock and renal failure were commonly encountered. As complications jaundice, rhabdomyolysis and polyneuropathy were frequently noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit
    CLINICAL GUIDELINES DANISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Guideline for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit Kristian Rørbæk Madsen, Kristian Lorentzen, Niels Clausen, Emilie Øberg, Peter Roy Casparij Kirkegaard, Nana Maymann-Holler & Morten Hylander Møller. This guideline has been approved by the Danish Society of Anesthesiology and to Danish conditions are few. Thus the current incidence of stress Intensive Care Medicine (DASAIM) and the Danish Society of Intensive Care Medicine ulcer bleeding in ICU patients is largely unknown. (DSIT) 26 January 2014 Correspondence: Kristian Rørbæk Madsen, Department of Anesthesiology and Risk factors Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Soendre Boulevard 29, 5000 Odense C, In a prospective multicenter cohort study (n=2256) by Cook et al, Denmark risk factors for clinically important GI bleeding were mechanical E-mail: [email protected] ventilation for more than 48 hours (odds ratio 15.6) and coagulopathy (odds ratio 4.3) 3. Other commonly cited, but less Conflicts of interests: Morten Hylander Møller is the initiator of the “SUP-ICU re- validated risk factors include severe sepsis and septic shock as search programme” (www.sup-icu.com). The remaining authors reported no con- flicts of interests. stated by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines; head or spinal trauma, hepatic failure, renal failure, major burns, organ trans- plantation, high dose glucocorticoid therapy, previous peptic 1,10 Dan Med J 2014;61(3):C4811. ulcer disease or upper GI bleeding . Last literature review: Nov 1 2013 Prognosis Limitations : Applies to patients aged > 18 years Stress ulcer bleeding is a serious complication. Cook et al. demon- strated a mortality rate of 49%, mostly from decompensation of List of abbreviations: an underlying condition or multiorgan failure, compared to 9% for H2RA = histamine-2-receptor antagonist patients without GI bleeding 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Discontinue Stress, Discontinue Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis
    Volume 22, Number 1 January 2008 Drugs & Therapy B � U � L � L � E � T � I � N FORMULARY UPDATE PRESCRIBING The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee met November 20, 2007. Discontinue stress, discontinue 2 drugs were added in the Formu- lary, and 4 drugs or dosage forms stress ulcer prophylaxis were deleted. 5 drugs or dosage tress ulcers are superficial lesions should be discontinued in patients with- forms were designated nonformulary involving the mucosal layer of the out an additional indication for use (eg, and not available. Criteria for use S stomach that appear after major stressful gastrointestinal reflux disease [GERD] or were changed for 3 drugs. events.1 Critically ill patients admitted history of GI bleed). When a patient trans- to intensive care units (ICUs) are at an fers or is discharged from an ICU, there is ◆ ADDED increased risk for suffering from compli- an opportunity to discontinue SUP. Ambrisentan cations related to stress ulceration.2 As An audit of SUP use in the ICUs at (Letairis® by Gilead Sciences)* such, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is Shands at UF was recently conducted. *Restricted to patients approved for the appropriate for many critically ill patients. Thirty adult patients receiving SUP were Letairis Education and Access Program SUP is defined as any medication used followed during their hospital admis- to prevent formation of stress ulcers and sion, beginning upon admission to the Anidulafungin includes antacids, sucralfate, prostaglan- surgical intensive care unit (SICU). When (Eraxis® by Pfizer)† din analogues, histamine H2-receptor mechanical ventilation and coagulopathy †Restricted to approval by the ID antagonists, and proton-pump inhibitors were no longer present, SUP was no lon- Consult Service, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Confidential: for Review Only Efficacy and Safety of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    BMJ Confidential: For Review Only Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis Journal: BMJ Manuscript ID BMJ-2019-052088 Article Type: Research BMJ Journal: BMJ Date Submitted by the 08-Aug-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Wang, Ying; Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Department of Pharmacy YE, ZHIKANG; McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact Ge, Long; School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Evidence Based Social Science Research Center; School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Evidence Based Medicine Center Siemieniuk, Reed; McMaster University, Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact Wang, Xin; Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Wang, Yingkai; Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Hou, Liangying; Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China Ma, Zhuo; Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Agoritsas, Thomas; McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; University Hospitals of Geneva, Division of General Internal Medicine & Division of Epidemiology Vandvik, Per; Innlandet Hospital Trust-divisjon Gjøvik, Department of Medicine Perner, Anders; Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Dept. of Intensive Care 4131 Møller, Morten; Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet,
    [Show full text]
  • ERR-0107-2019 Table S5
    Table S5. Studies included in the systematic reviews with meta-analysis Diagnosis of Inclusion Intervention (I) and Cointerventions a Study n Characteristic of Exclusion criteria VAP criteria Control (C) groups and VAP Bundle b ICU/ patients Surgical ICU (I): Cointervention: Polyurethane- Patients transferred from other TaperGuard EVACTM tubes: cone shape cuff (I): hospitals, urgent intubation in equipped with SSD port, APACHE II: 22.6 ± 5.1 MV>48h, clinical wards other than ICU, history polyurethane and cone shape VAP bundle: ICU LOS: 15 ± 5 features (CPIS) and Age between 18 and of MV, pregnancy, HIV, cuff. - Head elevation of 45º. Duration MV: 11.6 ± 7.1 bacterial pathogens 80 yr requiring immunosuppression, Method of SSD: Intermittent Mahmoodpoor - Protocolized enteral feeding. 276 ≥104 CFU/ml in mechanical ventilation leukopenia, patient refusal, and every 6h et al, 2017 - Sedation with washout periods. quantitative culture for more than 72 hours acute respiratory distress - Oral hygiene with (C): from bronchoalveolar with placement of an syndrome. Patients who were (C): chlorhexidine. APACHE II: 21.4 ± 4.4 lavage. endotracheal tube receiving antibiotics at the time Conventional high-volume - Hand washing. ICU LOS: 18 ± 10 of intubation, and those who low-pressure endotracheal - Pantoprazol for stress ulcer Duration MV: 12.3 ± 10.5 need a PEEP>5cm H2O. tubes prophylaxis. ICUs at Harborview Cointervention: Polyurethane- Medical Center. (I): cuffed 1) a polyurethane-conical (I): Patients with out-of-hospital shaped cuffed tube VAP bundle: SAPS II: 60 ± 12 cardiac arrest. 2) a polyurethane- conical - Head elevation of 45º. ICU LOS: N/A Adults (>18 yr of age) Use of a non–study-designated shaped cuffed tube with - Protocolized enteral feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Clinical Guidelines
    Last Approval Date: November 2019 Policy Title: Pharmacist-Managed Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Protocol Departments Affected: Pharmacy Page 1 of 5 Key Words: SUP, PPI, H2RA Reference #: 1835 I. PURPOSE: To ensure safe, evidence-based utilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the inpatient setting to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding while minimizing the associated adverse effects (Clostridium dificile colitis, nosocomial pneumonia, electrolyte abnormalities, vitamin deficiencies, drug interactions, thrombocytopenia, etc) through use of a standardized, pharmacist-managed protcol. II. POLICY: It is the policy of SHC to provide a process for pharmacists to discontinue or convert stress ulcer prophylaxis therapies (proton pump inhibitors to histamine-2 receptor agonists) in the inpatient setting to align with current practice guidelines and literature. Exclusions: Continuation of home therapy or PRN use in the inpatient setting Use of acid suppression therapy for treatment indications III. PROCEDURE: A. Evaluation 1. Pharmacists will screen patients receiving scheduled acid suppression therapy for indication at the time of order verification and on a daily basis thereafter. 2. If the indication for PPI or H2RA use is treatment as listed below, or the frequency is PRN (as needed), the pharmacist will not intervene. a. Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome b. Acute upper GI bleed c. Erosive esophagitis d. Helicobacter pylori treatment e. Gastric or duodenal ulcer f. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) g. Continuation of home therapy 3. If the indication for PPI or H2RA use is stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), pharmacists will perform a detailed review of the patient’s chart to determine whether the patient meets any of the following approved criteria for therapy4: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit – Adult/Pediatric/Neonatal – Inpatient Clinical Practice Guideline
    Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit – Adult/Pediatric/Neonatal – Inpatient Clinical Practice Guideline Note: Active Table of Contents – Click to follow link EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 3 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 4 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS – ADULT ICU PATIENTS .................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS – PEDIATRIC ICU PATIENTS ............................................................10 RECOMMENDATIONS – NEONATAL ICU PATIENTS ............................................................10 RECOMMENDATIONS – ADULT, PEDIATRIC, AND NEONATAL ICU PATIENTS ................12 UW HEALTH IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................13 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................14 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Original Article Perioperative Application of Proton Pump Inhibitors to Prevent Stress Ulcer
    Int J Clin Exp Med 2016;9(8):16771-16776 www.ijcem.com /ISSN:1940-5901/IJCEM0028559 Original Article Perioperative application of proton pump inhibitors to prevent stress ulcer Yanhong Wang, Weijuan Song Department of Pharmacy, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China Received March 17, 2016; Accepted June 12, 2016; Epub August 15, 2016; Published August 30, 2016 Abstract: Background: Patients with surgeries are prone to the occurrence of stress ulcer when under the stress sta- tus. Currently, proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are often used in clinical surgeries to prevent stress ulcer (SU). Purpose: To assess the rationality of perioperative application of PPI to prevent SU. Methods: Two hundred and thirty-eight patients performing surgeries in the department of vascular surgery were enrolled in this study, and 204 patients applied PPI to prevent the perioperative SU. Their basic situations and rationalities of PPI application in these 204 patients were analyzed. Results: The ratio of perioperative PPI application in preventing SU was 85.71% (204/238), while only 47.06% (96/204) of patients had the risk factors of SU. 96.08% (196/204) of administration routes were intravenous. 87.06% (222/255) of PPI injection medical orders selected normal saline as appropriate solvent of PPI. The problems such as too large dosage, long duration and frequent medication-change still existed for PPI application. Conclusion: When applying PPI to prevent SU, there still exist further optimization in aspects such as indications,
    [Show full text]