Dataset Information

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) generally receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) to avoid major gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aim was to compare outcomes between patients receiving PPIs and H₂RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis during ECMO.

Materials and methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database, using data recorded from 1 July 2010 to 31 March 2017. We defined patients who received PPIs within 2 days after starting ECMO as the PPIs group and those who received H₂RAs within 2 days after starting ECMO as the H₂RAs group. We performed propensity score matching to compare outcomes. The primary outcomes were gastrointestinal bleeding requiring endoscopic haemostasis and in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were red blood cell transfusion, hospital-acquired pneumonia and Clostridium difficile infection during hospitalisation.

Results

Of 11 328 eligible patients, 9738 received PPIs and 1590 received H₂RAs. Propensity score matching created 1556 pairs. No significant differences were seen regarding endoscopic haemostasis (1.2% vs 0.8%; p=0.37), in-hospital mortality (53.0% vs 53.1%; p=0.94), red blood cell transfusion rates (91.4% vs 89.7%; p=0.11), hospital-acquired pneumonia (13.0% vs 12.4%; p=0.59) or C. difficile infection (0.1% vs 0.2%; p=0.32) between the PPIs and H₂RAs groups, respectively.

Conclusion

We found no differences in the evaluated outcomes between the PPIs and H₂RAs groups. Both PPIs and H₂RAs are treatment options for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients undergoing ECMO.

SUBMITTER: Kondo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526299 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Kondo Yutaka Y Ohbe Hiroyuki H Matsui Hiroki H Fushimi Kiyohide K Tanaka Hiroshi H Yasunaga Hideo H

BMJ open 20200929 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>Patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) generally receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H<sub>2</sub>RAs) to avoid major gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aim was to compare outcomes between patients receiving PPIs and H<sub>2</sub>RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis during ECMO.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database, using data recorde ...[more]

PMID: 32994240

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:BackgroundIn patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Materials and methodsAll 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.ResultsA total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.ConclusionECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to identify the effect of histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the positivity rate and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching using medical claims data and general health examination results from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 January and 4 June 2020 were included. Patients who were prescribed H2RA or PPI within 1 year of the test date were defined as H2RA and PPI users, respectively. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and the secondary outcome was the instance of severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including death, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation administration.ResultsAmong 59,094 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 21,711 were H2RA users, 12,426 were PPI users, and 24,957 were non-users. After propensity score matching, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in H2RA users (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.98) and PPI users (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) compared to non-users. In patients with comorbidities including diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, the effect of H2RA and PPI against SARS-CoV-2 infection was not significant, whereas the protective effect was maintained in patients without such comorbidities. Risk of severe clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients showed no difference between users and non-users after propensity score matching either in H2RA users (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.54) or PPI users (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.60-2.51).ConclusionH2RA and PPI use is associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but does not affect clinical outcome. Comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia seem to offset the protective effect of H2RA and PPI.

Project description:ImportanceProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) are often prescribed for patients as stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU). The comparative effect of these drugs on mortality is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare in-hospital mortality rates using PPIs vs H2RBs for stress ulcer prophylaxis.Design, setting, and participantsCluster crossover randomized clinical trial conducted at 50 ICUs in 5 countries between August 2016 and January 2019. Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 hours of ICU admission were followed up for 90 days at the hospital.InterventionsTwo stress ulcer prophylaxis strategies were compared (preferential use with PPIs vs preferential use with H2RBs). Each ICU used each strategy sequentially for 6 months in random order; 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of PPIs and then use of H2RBs and 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of H2RBs and then use of PPIs (13 436 patients randomized by site to PPIs and 13 392 randomized by site to H2RBs).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days during index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridioides difficile infection, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay.ResultsAmong 26 982 patients who were randomized, 154 opted out, and 26 828 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 58 [17.0] years; 9691 [36.1%] were women). There were 26 771 patients (99.2%) included in the mortality analysis; 2459 of 13 415 patients (18.3%) in the PPI group died at the hospital by day 90 and 2333 of 13 356 patients (17.5%) in the H2RB group died at the hospital by day 90 (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.93 percentage points [95% CI, -0.01 to 1.88] percentage points; P = .054). An estimated 4.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to PPIs actually received H2RBs and an estimated 20.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to H2RBs actually received PPIs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 1.3% of the PPI group and 1.8% of the H2RB group (risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92]; absolute risk difference, -0.51 percentage points [95% CI, -0.90 to -0.12 percentage points]; P = .009). Rates of Clostridioides difficile infection and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were not significantly different by treatment group. One adverse event (an allergic reaction) was reported in 1 patient in the PPI group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a strategy of stress ulcer prophylaxis with use of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers resulted in hospital mortality rates of 18.3% vs 17.5%, respectively, a difference that did not reach the significance threshold. However, study interpretation may be limited by crossover in the use of the assigned medication.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

Dataset Information

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets