Kantorova Ilona, Svoboda Petr, Scheer Peter, Doubek Jaroslav, Rehorkova Dagmar, Bosakova Hana, Ochmann Jiri
Traumatological Hospital Brno, Research Center for Traumatology and Surgery, Czech Republic.
Hepatogastroenterology. 2004 May-Jun;51(57):757-61.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Critically ill patients especially who require mechanical ventilation or have coagulopathy are at increased risk for stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage. There are conflicting data on the efficacy and complication rates of various prophylactic regimens.
Our single-center randomized, placebo-controlled study included 287 patients with high risk for stress-related upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (>48 h mechanical ventilation, coagulopathy). We compared 3 prophylactic regimens (proton pump inhibitor--omeprazole 40 mg i.v. once daily, n=72; H2 antagonists--famotidine 40 mg twice a day, n=71; and sucralfate 1 g every 6 hours, n=69) with placebo (n=75) in patients with trauma or after major surgery.
Of 287 assessable patients, clinically significant stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in 1%, 3%, 4%, and 1% of patients assigned to receive omeprazole, famotidine, sucralfate, and placebo, respectively (p>0.28). Bleeding developed significantly more often in patients with coagulopathy compared with the others (10% vs. 2%; p=0.006). The gastric pH (p>0.001) and gastric colonization (p<0.05) was significantly higher in the patients who received pH increasing substances when compared with the other 2 groups. Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in 11% of patients receiving omeprazole, in 10% of famotidine patients, in 9% of sucralfate patients and in 7% of controls (p>0.34). No statistically significant differences were found for days on ventilator, length of ICU stay, or mortality among all the 4 groups.
We could not show that omeprazole, famotidine, or sucralfate prophylaxis can affect already very low incidence of clinically important stress-related bleeding in high-risk surgical intensive care unit patients. Furthermore, our data suggested that especially gastric pH increasing medication could increase the risk for nosocomial pneumonia. Routine prophylaxis for stress-related bleeding even in high-risk patients seems not to be justified.
背景/目的:重症患者,尤其是需要机械通气或患有凝血病的患者,发生应激相关胃肠道出血的风险增加。关于各种预防方案的疗效和并发症发生率的数据存在冲突。
我们的单中心随机、安慰剂对照研究纳入了287例有应激相关上消化道出血高风险(机械通气>48小时、凝血病)的患者。我们将3种预防方案(质子泵抑制剂——奥美拉唑40毫克静脉注射每日1次,n = 72;H2拮抗剂——法莫替丁40毫克每日2次,n = 71;以及硫糖铝1克每6小时1次,n = 69)与安慰剂(n = 75)在创伤患者或大手术后患者中进行比较。
在287例可评估患者中,分别有1%、3%、4%和1%接受奥美拉唑、法莫替丁、硫糖铝和安慰剂治疗的患者发生了具有临床意义的应激相关上消化道出血(p>0.28)。与其他患者相比,凝血病患者出血发生的频率明显更高(10%对2%;p = 0.006)。与其他两组相比,接受提高胃pH值药物治疗的患者胃pH值(p>0.001)和胃定植(p<0.05)明显更高。接受奥美拉唑治疗的患者中有11%发生医院获得性肺炎,接受法莫替丁治疗的患者中有10%发生,接受硫糖铝治疗的患者中有9%发生,对照组中有7%发生(p>0.34)。在所有4组中,机械通气天数、ICU住院时间或死亡率均未发现统计学上的显著差异。
我们无法证明奥美拉唑、法莫替丁或硫糖铝预防能影响高危外科重症监护病房患者中本就很低的具有临床重要意义的应激相关出血发生率。此外,我们的数据表明,尤其是提高胃pH值的药物可能会增加医院获得性肺炎的风险。即使在高危患者中,对应激相关出血进行常规预防似乎也不合理。