ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2021
The efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in cardiac care unit patients.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The benefit of omeprazole exposure on all-cause mortality and length of ICU/hospital stay might vary with age in critically ill pediatric patients: A cohort study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Observational
- The efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in cardiac care unit patients.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimConcerns regarding adverse events associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) prophylaxis in the intensive care unit have increased in recent years. Few studies have focused on acid suppressant use in the cardiac care unit (CCU) setting exclusively. We performed a cohort study to determine the efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for GIB prophylaxis in CCU patients.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included adults who were admitted directly to the CCU for more than 2 days from January 1, 2014, to April 30, 2019. The Crusade score was calculated to evaluate the risk of GIB. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGIB), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and in-hospital mortality.
resultsOf the 3318 patients enrolled, 2284 (68.8%) patients received PPIs, 515 (15.5%) received H2RAs, and 519 (15.7%) received no acid suppressants. After adjusting for potential confounders, utilization of PPIs (2.69, 95% confidence interval [0.62-11.73]) and H2RAs (1.41, 95% confidence interval [0.19-10.36]) were not associated with a lower risk of CIGIB than the control. Sensitivity analyses revealed that PPI use was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality in patients over 75 years old, with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.08 (1.14-14.63). PPIs increased the risk of HAP in patients over 75 years old and in those with heart failure, with adjusted odds ratios of 2.38 (1.06-5.34) and 2.88 (1.34-7.28), respectively.
conclusionsProton pump inhibitors and H2RAs for GIB prophylaxis in CCU patients were not associated with a lower risk of CIGIB than the controls. PPI therapy is associated with increased risks of HAP and in-hospital mortality in patients over 75 years old. PPIs may increase the risk of HAP in patients with heart failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.