Advertisement

Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 143–158 | Cite as

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

  • Marija BarbateskovicEmail author
  • Søren Marker
  • Anders Granholm
  • Carl Thomas Anthon
  • Mette Krag
  • Janus Christian Jakobsen
  • Anders Perner
  • Jørn Wetterslev
  • Morten Hylander Møller
Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose

Most intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. We present updated evidence on the effects of prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo/no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in adult ICU patients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of PPI/H2RA versus placebo/no prophylaxis on mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), myocardial ischemia, pneumonia, and Clostridium (Cl.) difficile enteritis in ICU patients.

Results

We identified 42 trials randomising 6899 ICU patients; 3 had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on mortality [relative risk 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.94–1.14], but the occurrence of any GI bleeding was reduced as compared with placebo/no prophylaxis (0.60, 95% CI 0.47–0.77; TSA-adjusted CI 0.36–1.00). The conventional meta-analysis indicated that clinically important GI bleeding was reduced (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.81), but the TSA-adjusted CI 0.35–1.13 indicated lack of firm evidence. The effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis are uncertain.

Conclusions

In this updated systematic review, we were able to refute a relative change of 20% of mortality. The occurrence of GI bleeding was reduced, but we lack firm evidence for a reduction in clinically important GI bleeding. The effects on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis remain inconclusive.

Keywords

Critical care Peptic ulcer Gastrointestinal haemorrhage Meta-analysis Proton pump inhibitors Histamine-2 receptor antagonists Stress ulcer prophylaxis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

MB, SM, JCJ, AP and JW were supported by the public Innovation Fund Denmark (4108-00011B), which did not have any role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. No other sources of financial support were obtained for this review. The authors thank Sanam Safi and Kiran Kumar Katakam, who were not involved in any aspects of the SUP-ICU trial, for extracting data and evaluating risk of bias of this trial. We also wish to thank Maria Hernandez Sierra, Aleksandra Mazur, Ning Liang and Dezhao Kong for translating papers.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Marija Barbateskovic: PhD student at the Copenhagen Trial Unit and the Centre for Research in Intensive Care. Søren Marker: PhD student at the Department of Intensive Care at Rigshospitalet and the Centre for Research in Intensive Care. Coordinating investigator of the randomised clinical trial ‘Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit’ (SUP-ICU). Anders Granholm: Coordinating investigator of the SUP-ICU trial. Carl Thomas Anthon: Coordinating investigator of the SUP-ICU trial. Mette Krag: Coordinating investigator of the SUP-ICU trial. Janus Christian Jakobsen: Director of Research, Chief Physician, Department of Cardiology, Holbæk Sygehus, Holbæk, Denmark. Anders Perner: Head of Research at the Department of Intensive Care at Rigshospitalet. The intensive care unit receives support for research from CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr Perner is initiator of the SUP-ICU trial. Jørn Wetterslev: Member of the Copenhagen Trial Unit task force for developing Trial Sequential Analysis theory, manual and software which is presently free-ware at www.ctu.dk/tsa. Dr Wetterslev is member of the SUP-ICU trial steering group. Morten Hylander Møller: Sponsor and initiator of the SUP-ICU trial.

Ethical approval

An approval by an ethics committee was not applicable.

Supplementary material

134_2019_5526_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1923 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M (2010) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 38(11):2222–2228Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise M, Borthwick M, Bendel S et al (2015) Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 41(5):833–845Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krag M, Marker S, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Schefold JC et al (2018) Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. N Eng J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1714919 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alhazzani W, Guyatt G, Alshahrani M, Deane AM, Marshall JC, Hall R et al (2017) Withholding pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a pilot randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 45(7):1121–1129Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selvanderan SP, Summers MJ, Finnis ME, Plummer MP, Ali Abdelhamid Y, Anderson MB et al (2016) Pantoprazole or placebo for stress ulcer prophylaxis (pop-up): randomized double-blind exploratory study. Crit Care Med 44(10):1842–1850Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R et al (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43(3):304–377Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madsen KR, Lorentzen K, Clausen N, Oberg E, Kirkegaard PR, Maymann-Holler N et al (2014) Guideline for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit. Dan Med J 61(3):C4811Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Moller MH (2013) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: is it indicated? A topical systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 57(7):835–847Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marker S, Krag M, Moller MH (2017) What’s new with stress ulcer prophylaxis in the ICU? Intensive Care Med 43(8):1132–1134Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ (2013) Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 41(3):693–705Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin PC, Chang CH, Hsu PI, Tseng PL, Huang YB (2010) The efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis among critical care patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 38(4):1197–1205Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kantorova I, Svoboda P, Scheer P, Doubek J, Rehorkova D, Bosakova H et al (2004) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatogastroenterology 51(57):757–761Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pongprasobchai S, Kridkratoke S, Nopmaneejumruslers C (2009) Proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of stress-related mucosal disease in critically-ill patients: a meta-analysis. J Med Assoc Thai 92(5):632–637Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barkun AN, Bardou M, Pham CQ, Martel M (2012) Proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a meta analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 107(4):507–520Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E, Cook D, Almenawer SA, Alqahtani Z, Perri D et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care 20(1):120Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu BL, Li B, Zhang X, Fei Z, Hu SJ, Lin W et al (2013) A randomized controlled study comparing omeprazole and cimetidine for the prophylaxis of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. J Neurosurg 118(1):115–120Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin CC, Hsu YL, Chung CS, Lee TH (2016) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients being weaned from the ventilator in a respiratory care center: a randomized control trial. J Formos Med Assoc 115(1):19–24Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Kersh K, Jalil B, Mcclave SA, Cavallazzi R, Guardiola J, Guilkey K et al (2018) Enteral nutrition as stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled exploratory study. J Crit Care 43:108–113Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barbateskovic M, Marker S, Jakobsen JC, Krag M (2018) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult intensive care unit patients—a protocol for a systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 62(6):744–755Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Updated March 2011. The cochrane collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
  21. 21.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, Van Laarhoven CJ (2010) Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:90Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Lange T, Gluud C (2014) Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:120Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S et al (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328(7454):1490Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (1997). ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice. Updated July 2002Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savovic J, Turner RM, Mawdsley D, Jones HE, Beynon R, Higgins JPT et al (2018) Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol 187(5):1113–1122Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25(20):3443–3457Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thorlund K EJ, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Www.Ctu.Dk/Tsa/Files/Tsa_Manual.Pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  29. 29.
    Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C (2017) Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):39Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Revman (2014) Review manager (Revman) (computer program), version 5.3. The Nordic Cochrane Center, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen. https://Community.Cochrane.Org/Help/Tools-and-Software/Revman-5/Revman-5-Download. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  31. 31.
    Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C (2009) Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:86Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Demets DL (1987) Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med 6(3):341–350Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dersimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT (2010) Statistical algorithms in review manager 5. 2010: RevMan 5.3Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2008) Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 61(8):763–769Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C (2009) Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 38(1):287–298Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Simmonds M (2011) Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 30(9):903–921Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Imberger G, Gluud C, Boylan J, Wetterslev J (2015) Systematic reviews of anesthesiologic interventions reported as statistically significant: problems with power, precision, and type 1 error protection. Anesth Analg 121(6):1611–1622Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mascha EJ (2015) Alpha, beta, meta: guidelines for assessing power and type i error in meta-analyses. Anesth Analg 121(6):1430–1433Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pogue JM, Yusuf S (1997) Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials 18(6):580–593Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Terkawi AS, Mavridis D, Flood P, Wetterslev J, Terkawi RS, Bin Abdulhak AA et al (2016) Does ondansetron modify sympathectomy due to subarachnoid anesthesia?: Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and trial sequential analysis. Anesthesiology 124(4):846–869Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L et al (2009) Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol 38(1):276–286Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C (2008) Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 61(1):64–75Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thorlund K, Imberger G, Johnston BC, Walsh M, Awad T, Thabane L et al (2012) Evolution of heterogeneity (I2) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 7(7):e39471Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Apte NM, Karnad DR, Medhekar TP, Tilve GH, Morye S, Bhave GG (1992) Gastric colonization and pneumonia in intubated critically ill patients receiving stress ulcer prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 20(5):590–593Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Basso N, Bagarani M, Materia A, Fiorani S, Lunardi P, Speranza V (1981) Cimetidine and antacid prophylaxis of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high risk patients: controlled, randomized trial. Am J Surg 141(3):339–341Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ben-Menachem T, Fogel R, Patel RV, Touchette M, Zarowitz BJ, Hadzijahic N et al (1994) Prophylaxis for stress-related gastric hemorrhage in the medical intensive care unit: a randomized, controlled, single-blind study. Ann Intern Med 121(8):568–575Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Den Berg B, Van Blankenstein M (1985) Prevention of stress-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding by cimetidine in patients on assisted ventilation. Digestion 31(1):1–8Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Burgess P, Larson GM, Davidson P, Brown J, Metz CA (1995) Effect of ranitidine on intragastric ph and stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with severe head injury. Dig Dis Sci 40(3):645–650Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cartier F, Gauthier-Lafaye P, Lareng L, Mottin J, Cara M, Passelecq J et al (1980) Cimetideine in patients at risk of stress ulcers: a multi-centre controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 6:54Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chan KH, Lai EC, Tuen H, Ngan JH, Mok F, Fan YW et al (1995) Prospective double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial on the use of ranitidine in preventing postoperative gastroduodenal complications in high-risk neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg 82(3):413–417Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Darlong V, Jayalakhsmi TS, Kaul HL, Tandon R (2003) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients on ventilator. Trop Gastroenterol 24(3):124–128Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Domingues SHS, Stoeber GH, Stoeber AC (1985) Ranitidina Injetável Em Pacientes De Alto Risco. Folha Med 91(3):225–228Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Friedman CJ, Oblinger MJ, Suratt PM, Bowers J, Goldberg SK, Sperling MH et al (1982) Prophylaxis of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 10(5):316–319Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Groll A, Simon JB, Wigle RD, Taguchi K, Todd RJ, Depew WT (1986) Cimetidine prophylaxis for gastrointestinal bleeding in an intensive care unit. Gut 27(2):135–140Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gundogan K, Karakoc E, Teke T, Zerman A, Coruh A, Sungur M (2017) Effects of enteral nutrition on stress ulcer hemorrhage in critically ill patients: multicenter randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med Exp 5(2):44Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gursoy O, Memis D, Sut N (2008) Effect of proton pump inhibitors on gastric juice volume, gastric ph and gastric intramucosal pH in critically ill patients: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Clin Drug Investig 28(12):777–782Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Halloran LG, Zfass AM, Gayle WE, Wheeler CB, Miller JD (1980) Prevention of acute gastrointestinal complications after severe head injury: a controlled trial of cimetidine prophylaxis. Am J Surg 139(1):44–48Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hanisch EW, Encke A, Naujoks F, Windolf J (1998) A randomized, double-blind trial for stress ulcer prophylaxis shows no evidence of increased pneumonia. Am J Surg 176(5):453–457Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hummer-Sigiel M, Jacquier A, Girard A, Garric J, Laxenaire MC, Mandorla JY (1986) Ranitidine Pour La Prophylaxie De L’ulcére De Stress Chexz Les Traumatisés Crâniens Graves. Ann Med Nancy l’Est 25:101–103Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jakob SM, Parviainen I, Ruokonen E, Uusaro A, Takala J (2005) Lack of effect of ranitidine on gastric luminal Ph and mucosal PCO2 during the first day in the ICU. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 49(3):390–396Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kam J, Modi C, Doraiswamy V, Abdul-Jawad S, Dixit D, Spira T et al (2011) Role of gastrointestinal ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Am J Gastroenterol 106(suppl. 2):s420Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Karlstadt RG, Iberti TJ, Silverstein J, Lindenberg L, Bright-Asare P, Rockhold F et al (1990) Comparison of cimetidine and placebo for the prophylaxis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to stress-related gastric mucosal damage in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med 5:26–32Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Koelz HR, Aeberhard P, Hassler H, Kunz H, Wagner HE, Roth F et al (1987) Prophylactic treatment of acute gastroduodenal stress ulceration: low-dose antacid treatment without and with additional ranitidine. Scand J Gastroenterol 22(9):1147–1152Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Larson GM, Davidson P, Brown J, Wilson T, Bishop A (1989) Comparison of ranitidine versus placebo on 24-hour gastric Ph and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding in head injury patients. Abstr Am J Gastroenterol 84:1165Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Luk GD, Summer WR, Messersmith JF (1982) Cimetidine and antacid in prophylaxis of acute gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Gastroenterology 82:1121Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Macdougall BR, Bailey RJ, Williams R (1977) H2-receptor antagonists and antacids in the prevention of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage in fulminant hepatic failure: two controlled trials. Lancet 1(8012):617–619Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Martin LF, Booth FV, Karlstadt RG, Silverstein JH, Jacobs DM, Hampsey J et al (1993) Continuous intravenous cimetidine decreases stress-related upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage without promoting pneumonia. Crit Care Med 21(1):19–30Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Metz CA, Livingston DH, Smith JS, Larson GM, Wilson TH (1993) Impact of multiple risk factors and ranitidine prophylaxis on the development of stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial. The Ranitidine Head Injury Study Group. Crit Care Med 21(12):1844–1849Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nielsen HJ, Witt K, Moesgaard F, Kehlet H (1989) Ranitidine for improvement of delayed hypersensitivity response in patients with sepsis. Acta Chir Scand 155(9):445–449Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Peura DA, Johnson LF (1985) Cimetidine for prevention and treatment of gastroduodenal mucosal lesions in patients in an intensive care unit. Ann Intern Med 103(2):173–177Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Powell H, Morgan M, Li SK, Baron JH (1993) Inhibition of gastric acid secretion in the intensive care unit after coronary artery bypass graft. Theor Surg 8:125–130Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rigaud D, Accary JP, Chastre J, Mignon M, Laigneau JP, Reinberg A et al (1988) Persistence of circadian rhythms in gastric acid, gastrin, and pancreatic polypeptide secretions despite loss of cortisol and body temperature rhythms in man under stress. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 12(1):12–18Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rohde H, Lorenz W, Fischer M (1980) Eine Randomisierte Klinische Studie Zur Stressulkusprophylaxe Mit Cimetidin Beim Schweren Polytrauma. Z Gastroenterol 18(6):328–329Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ruiz-Santana S, Ortiz E, Gonzalez B, Bolanos J, Ruiz-Santana AJ, Manzano JL (1991) Stress-induced gastroduodenal lesions and total parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: frequency, complications, and the value of prophylactic treatment: a prospective, randomized study. Crit Care Med 19(7):887–891Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Spapen H, Diltoer M, Nguyen DN, Ingels G, Ramet J, Huyghens L (1995) One week treatment with cimetidine does not attenuate the cortisol response to a short corticotropin test in stable intensive care patients: a prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 46(3–4):133–140Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Vlatten A, Wiedeck H, Reinelt H, Stanescu A, Georgieff M (1998) Stressulkus-Prophylaxe Bei Hoch-Risiko-Intensivpatienten. Vergleich Von Omeprazol, Pirenzepin Und Plazebo. Wien Klin Wochenschr Suppl 110(suppl. 1):38Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Zinner MJ, Zuidema GD, Smith P, Mignosa M (1981) The prevention of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in patients in an intensive care unit. Surg Gynecol Obstet 153(2):214–220Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Hylander Moller M (2014) Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 40(1):11–22Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Toews I, George AT, Peter JV, Kirubakaran R, Fontes LES, Ezekiel JPB et al (2018) Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:Cd008687Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Huang HB, Jiang W, Wang CY, Qin HY, Du B (2018) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 22(1):20Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E, Heels-Ansdell D, Brignardello-Petersen R, Alquraini M et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 44(1):1–11Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Macias WL, Nelson DR, Williams M, Garg R, Janes J, Sashegyi A (2005) Lack of evidence for qualitative treatment by disease severity interactions in clinical studies of severe sepsis. Crit Care 9(6):R607–R622Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marija Barbateskovic
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Søren Marker
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anders Granholm
    • 3
  • Carl Thomas Anthon
    • 3
  • Mette Krag
    • 3
  • Janus Christian Jakobsen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Anders Perner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jørn Wetterslev
    • 1
    • 2
  • Morten Hylander Møller
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Copenhagen Trial UnitCentre for Clinical Intervention ResearchCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Intensive Care, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Intensive Care, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyHolbaek HospitalHolbaekDenmark

Personalised recommendations