Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units

Glenn M Eastwood, Edward Litton, Rinaldo Bellomo, Michael John Bailey, Marino Festa, Richard W Beasley, Paul Jeffrey Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Intensivists frequently prescribe proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) to intensive care unit patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). Despite the common use of SUP medicines, there is limited high-level evidence to support the choice between them. To describe self-reported practice of SUP by Australian and New Zealand intensivists. An online questionnaire of intensivists between 13 January and 3 February 2014. Seventy-two intensivists responded to the survey: 61 (85 ) practised in public metropolitan ICUs and 13/48 (27 ) practised in paediatric ICUs. Fifty-two (72 ) respondents indicated that PPIs were their preferred SUP medicine. Respondents estimated that an average of 84 of ventilated and 53 of non-ventilated patients received SUP medicines during their ICU admission. Seven respondents (9 ) were concerned or very concerned about the possible increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with H2RBs versus PPIs. Ten respondents (14 ) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk of Clostridium difficile infection, and 15 respondents (21 ) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk or ventilator-associated pneumonia with PPIs versus H2RBs. Most respondents (64 [89 ) agreed or strongly agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the choice of an optimal SUP medicine, and 58 respondents (81 ) agreed or strongly agreed to patient enrollment in an RCT comparing PPIs with H2RBs. Most survey respondents felt that current evidence is insufficient to justify the preferential use of PPIs or H2RBs for SUP and would enroll patients in a comparative SUP RCT.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)170 - 174
Number of pages5
JournalCritical Care and Resuscitation
Volume16
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Cite this