Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35122105›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2022

The effects of pantoprazole vs. placebo on 1-year outcomes, resource use and employment status in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a secondary analysis of the SUP-ICU trial.

Christine Marie Bækø Halling, Morten Hylander Møller, Søren Marker, Mette Krag, Jakob Kjellberg, Anders Perner, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christine Marie Bækø HallingVIVE - The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, 1052, København K, Denmark. chsk@vive.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3899-4517
Morten Hylander MøllerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6378-9673
Søren MarkerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3602-4541
Mette KragDepartment of Intensive Care, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5246-8727
Jakob KjellbergVIVE - The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, 1052, København K, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4336-2397
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4668-0123
Dorte Gyrd-HansenDanish Centre for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1137-2304
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKVIVE - The Danish Center for Social Science Research · DKHolbæk Sygehus · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Innovationsfonden 4108-00011A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), including proton pump inhibitors, is widely used in the attempt to prevent this. In this secondary analysis of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, we assessed 1-year outcomes in the pantoprazole vs. placebo groups.

methodsIn the SUP-ICU trial, 3298 acutely admitted ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding were randomly allocated, stratified for site, to pantoprazole or placebo. In this secondary analysis, we assessed clinically important GI bleedings in ICU and 1-year mortality, health care resource use (e.g. readmission with GI bleeding, use of home care and general practitioner), health care costs, and employment status for the Danish participants using registry data.

resultsAmong the 2099 Danish participants, 2092 had data in the registries; 1045 allocated to pantoprazole and 1047 to placebo. The number of clinically important GI bleedings in ICU was 1.9 percentage points [95% CI 0.3-3.5] lower in the pantoprazole group vs. the placebo group, but none of the 1-year outcomes differed statistically significantly between groups, including total health care costs (€1954 [- 2992 to 6899]), readmission with GI bleeding (- 0.005 admissions [- 0.016 to 0.005]), 1-year mortality (- 0.013 percentage points [- 0.051 to 0.026]), and employment (- 0.178 weeks [- 0.390 to 0.034]).

conclusionAmong ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, pantoprazole reduced clinically important GI bleeding in ICU, but this did not translate into a reduction in 1-year mortality, health care resource use or improvements in employment status.

Indexed as

Peptic UlcerEmploymentGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansIntensive Care UnitsPantoprazoleProton Pump InhibitorsPantoprazoleProton Pump InhibitorsHealth care resource useIntensive careLong-term outcomesRegistry analysisStress ulcer prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID35122105
OpenAlexW4210577823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.