Selvanderan Shane P, Summers Matthew J, Finnis Mark E, Plummer Mark P, Ali Abdelhamid Yasmine, Anderson Michael B, Chapman Marianne J, Rayner Christopher K, Deane Adam M
1Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.2Department of Critical Care Services, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.3National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Centre for Research Excellence in Nutritional Physiology and Outcomes, Adelaide, SA, Australia.4Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.5Discipline of Medicine, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Crit Care Med. 2016 Oct;44(10):1842-50. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001819.
Pantoprazole is frequently administered to critically ill patients for prophylaxis against gastrointestinal bleeding. However, comparison to placebo has been inadequately evaluated, and pantoprazole has the potential to cause harm. Our objective was to evaluate benefit or harm associated with pantoprazole administration.
Prospective randomized double-blind parallel-group study.
University-affiliated mixed medical-surgical ICU.
Mechanically ventilated critically ill patients suitable for enteral nutrition.
We randomly assigned patients to receive either daily IV placebo or pantoprazole.
Major outcomes were clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding, infective ventilator-associated complication or pneumonia, and Clostridium difficile infection; minor outcomes included overt bleeding, hemoglobin concentration profiles, and mortality. None of the 214 patients randomized had an episode of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding, three patients met the criteria for either an infective ventilator-associated complication or pneumonia (placebo: 1 vs pantoprazole: 2), and one patient was diagnosed with Clostridium difficile infection (0 vs 1). Administration of pantoprazole was not associated with any difference in rates of overt bleeding (6 vs 3; p = 0.50) or daily hemoglobin concentrations when adjusted for transfusion rates of packed red cells (p = 0.66). Mortality was similar between groups (log-rank p = 0.33: adjusted hazard ratio for pantoprazole: 1.68 [95% CI, 0.97-2.90]; p = 0.06).
We found no evidence of benefit or harm with the prophylactic administration of pantoprazole to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients anticipated to receive enteral nutrition. The practice of routine administration of acid-suppressive drugs to critically ill patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis warrants further evaluation.
泮托拉唑常用于危重症患者以预防胃肠道出血。然而,与安慰剂相比其效果尚未得到充分评估,且泮托拉唑有造成伤害的潜在风险。我们的目的是评估使用泮托拉唑的益处或危害。
前瞻性随机双盲平行组研究。
大学附属医院的内科与外科混合重症监护病房。
适合肠内营养的机械通气危重症患者。
我们将患者随机分配接受每日静脉注射安慰剂或泮托拉唑。
主要结局为具有临床意义的胃肠道出血、感染性呼吸机相关性并发症或肺炎,以及艰难梭菌感染;次要结局包括显性出血、血红蛋白浓度变化及死亡率。214例随机分组患者中,无一人发生具有临床意义的胃肠道出血事件,3例患者符合感染性呼吸机相关性并发症或肺炎的标准(安慰剂组:1例 vs 泮托拉唑组:2例),1例患者被诊断为艰难梭菌感染(安慰剂组:0例 vs 泮托拉唑组:1例)。泮托拉唑的使用与显性出血发生率(6例 vs 3例;p = 0.50)或校正红细胞压积输血率后的每日血红蛋白浓度无差异(p = 0.66)。两组死亡率相似(对数秩检验p = 0.33:泮托拉唑校正风险比:1.68 [95% CI,0.97 - 2.90];p = 0.06)。
我们未发现有证据表明对预期接受肠内营养的机械通气危重症患者预防性使用泮托拉唑有益或有害。对危重症患者常规使用抑酸药物预防应激性溃疡的做法值得进一步评估。