Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32702782›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2020

Comparison between esomeprazole 20 mg Vs 40 mg as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Khalid Al Sulaiman, Kholoud Al Aamer, Alaa Al Harthi, Saud Jaser, Abdulrahman Al Anazi, Sultan Al Subaie, Ramesh Vishwakarma

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Khalid Al SulaimanPharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5547-2043
Kholoud Al AamerPharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alaa Al HarthiPharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Saud JaserPharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulrahman Al AnaziPharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Sultan Al SubaiePharmaceutical Care Department-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center/King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ramesh VishwakarmaDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics-King Abdulaziz Medical City-MNGHA, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of developing upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to GI stress ulceration (SU). The major independent risk factors for the development of GI bleeding in the ICUs include mechanical ventilation (MV) and coagulopathy. There is no enough evidence regarding the most appropriate dosing of esomeprazole as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients. This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City-Riyadh between January and December 2018 to determine the efficacy and safety of two different regimens of esomeprazole (20 vs 40 mg) as SUP in critically ill patients with major risk factors of GI stress ulceration. A total of 1864 patients were reviewed, 387 patients meeting inclusion criteria were enrolled. The propensity score was used to adjust for clinically and statistically relevant variables. We considered a P value of <.05 as statistically significant. 49 patients (12.6%) had received Esomeprazole 20 mg during the study period. Compared with Esomeprazole 20 mg, Esomeprazole 40 mg was not superior in GI bleeding prevention (aOR 2.611, 95% CI 0.343-20.247, P = .356). In addition, neither ICU C. difficle, ICU mortality within 30 days, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, ICU re-admission within 6 months, RBCs transfusion, nor platelets transfusion requirements were significant. On the other hand, Esomeprazole 40 mg was statistically associated with Enterobacteriaceae, Pneumonia, and longer MV duration.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Ulcer AgentsCohort StudiesCritical IllnessDose-Response Relationship, DrugEsomeprazoleFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPeptic UlcerAnti-Ulcer AgentsEsomeprazoleProton Pump Inhibitorscritically illesomeprazoleICUPPIstress ulcer prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID32702782
PMCPMC7377930
OpenAlexW3044671345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.