Advertisement

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill poisoned patients

Open Access
Letter to the Editor
  • 1.7k Downloads

Keywords

Intensive Care Unit Carbamazepine Tramadol Paraquat Sucralfate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Letter to the editor

Management of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an important issue in medicine[1, 2]. These patients may have clinically important bleeding, which is associated with an increased mortality rate. Mechanical ventilation may also increase the risk of bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal system. Sucralfate, histamine-2-receptor antagonists, and proton pumps inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults[3]. Available data shows that PPIs are safe and efficacious for increasing intragastric pH in critically ill patients[4]. Since the superiority of the PPIs over histamine-2-receptor antagonists or sucralfate is not yet proved, they should only be used as an alternative to these agents.

Poisoned patients may need to be admitted in ICU because of their critical condition. Poisoning with fatal agents such as aluminum phosphide, paraquat, organophosphate, or massive pharmaceutical drug overdoses usually needs ICU care and sometimes mechanical ventilation[5, 6]. A question is therefore arisen: which of these agents is better to be used for ulcer prophylaxis in poisoned patients?

Affection of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) by toxins or pharmaceutical drugs is an important point in answering this question. Generally, most of the toxicants have a liver metabolism[7]. The number of the known P450 enzyme inducers or inhibitors exceeds 1000, but P450 3A4 is the most frequent CYP in the human liver and is known to metabolize the majority of drugs whose biotransformation is known[8]. So, inhibition or induction of CYP may increase or decrease the final metabolites of the toxicants and may have a value in the treatment of poisoned patients in the ICU.

Histamine-2-receptor antagonists are known as CYP inhibitors[9] and PPIs are inducers of CYP[8]. PPIs can therefore be recommended for the intoxications in which a CYP inhibitor is involved (such as antidepressant intoxication) or the medications which are toxic in origin but induce non-toxic metabolites. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists may be more useful in the poisonings with CYP inducers (such as carbamazepine or Phenobarbital toxicities) or in cases whose metabolits are more toxic than the parent medication (such as acetaminophen, tramadol, etc.). This may affect the patients’ prognosis as well as their hospital stay. We, therefore, would like to encourage toxicologists to provide studies to evaluate such potential benefits of each type of these ulcer protectors in each poisoning.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Honarmand H, Abdollahi M, Ahmadi A, Javadi MR, Khoshaiand MR, Tabeefar H, Mousavi S, Mahmoudi L, Radfar M, Najafi A, Mojtahedzadeh M: Randomized trial of the effect of intravenous paracetamol on inflammatory biomarkers and outcome in febrile critically ill adults. DARU. 2012, 20: 12-PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mirrahimi B, Hamishehkar H, Ahmadi A, Mirjalili MR, Aghamohamadi M, Najafi A, Abdollahi M, Mojtahedzadeh M: The efficacy of magnesium sulfate loading on microalbuminuria following SIRS: One step forward in dosing. DARU. 2012, 20: 74-PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steinberg KP: Stress-related mucosal disease in the critically ill patient: risk factors and strategies to prevent stress-related bleeding in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2002, 30 (6 Suppl): S362-S364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jung R, MacLaren R: Proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2002, 36 (12): 1929-1937.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taghaddosinejad F, Sheikhazadi A, Yaghmaei A, Mehrpour O, Schwake L: Epidemiology and treatment of severe poisoning in the intensive care unit: lessons from a One-year prospective observational study. J Clinic Toxicol. 2012, S1: 007-10.4172/2161-0495.S1-007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehrpour O, Jafarzadeh M, Abdollahi M: A systematic review of aluminium phosphide poisoning. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2012, 63: 61-73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGraw J, Waller D: Cytochrome P450 variations in different ethnic populations. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012, 8 (3): 371-382. 10.1517/17425255.2012.657626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Masubuchi N, Li AP, Okazaki O: An evaluation of the cytochrome P450 induction potential of pantoprazole in primary human hepatocytes. Chem Biol Interact. 1998, 114: 1-13. 10.1016/S0009-2797(98)00031-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petroianu GA, Hasan MY, Nurulain SM, Arafat K, Sha Ullah M, Naseer O: Protective agents in acute high-dose organophosphate exposure: comparison of ranitidine with pralidoxime in rats. J Appl Toxicol. 2005, 25: 68-73. 10.1002/jat.1037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mehrpour et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Toxicology and Drug Abuse Research Center (MTDRC), BirjandUniversity of Medical ScienceBirjandIran
  2. 2.Addiction Research CentreMashhad University of Medial ToxicologyMashhadIran
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Toxicology, Loghman Hakim HospitalShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations