Suppr超能文献

静脉质子泵抑制剂间断与持续输注用于上消化道出血。

Intermittent Versus Continuous Infusion Dosing of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

机构信息

Stanford Health Care, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.

出版信息

Ann Pharmacother. 2022 Oct;56(10):1127-1132. doi: 10.1177/10600280211073936. Epub 2022 Feb 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) continuous infusions or intermittent boluses are used for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Intermittent boluses are easier to give and are of lower cost without affecting clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of rebleeding between intermittent bolus and continuous infusion PPI therapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter review of patients with UGIB receiving either continuous or intermittent PPI therapy. During the study period, due to drug and supply shortages, each institution implemented policies preferring intermittent PPI bolus therapy. We performed bivariate and multivariable comparisons of the 2 treatment strategies, with the primary outcome of interest being incidence of rebleeding. Additional variables of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Compared with intermittent bolus dosing (n = 209), patients receiving continuous infusion PPI (n = 237) were associated with a higher rate of rebleeding (33.8% vs 23.0%; = 0.012); however, no difference was detected in multivariable analysis: adjusted odds ratio, 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.50). There was no difference in median hospital or ICU length of stay, discharge disposition, or in-hospital mortality. Correlatively, patients receiving continuous infusion therapy were more likely to have liver disease (29.1% vs 20.1%; = 0.028), alcohol use disorder (28.3% vs 16.3.%; = 0.003), history of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (6.4% vs 1.9%; = 0.021), variceal bleeding (6.3 vs 2.4%, = 0.045), and be admitted to the ICU (65.0% vs 32.5%, = 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of intermittent PPI bolus UGIB treatment via change in hospital policy was not associated with higher rates of rebleeding. However, continuous PPI therapy may have been perceived as more effective as it was used more commonly in high-risk patients.

摘要

背景

质子泵抑制剂(PPI)持续输注或间歇性推注用于治疗上消化道出血(UGIB)。间歇性推注更容易给药且成本更低,而不会影响临床结果。

目的

比较间歇性推注和连续输注 PPI 治疗之间再出血率。

方法

我们对接受连续或间歇性 PPI 治疗的 UGIB 患者进行了回顾性、多中心研究。在研究期间,由于药物和供应短缺,每个机构都实施了优先使用间歇性 PPI 推注治疗的政策。我们对两种治疗策略进行了双变量和多变量比较,主要观察指标为再出血发生率。其他感兴趣的变量包括重症监护病房(ICU)和住院时间、出院去向和住院死亡率。

结果

与间歇性推注剂量组(n = 209)相比,接受连续输注 PPI 治疗的患者(n = 237)再出血率更高(33.8% vs 23.0%; = 0.012);但多变量分析未发现差异:调整后的优势比,1.50(95%置信区间,0.91-2.50)。中位住院或 ICU 时间、出院去向或住院死亡率无差异。相应地,接受连续输注治疗的患者更有可能患有肝病(29.1% vs 20.1%; = 0.028)、酒精使用障碍(28.3% vs 16.3%; = 0.003)、下消化道出血史(6.4% vs 1.9%; = 0.021)、静脉曲张出血(6.3% vs 2.4%; = 0.045)和入住 ICU(65.0% vs 32.5%; = 0.00)。

结论

通过改变医院政策引入间歇性 PPI 推注 UGIB 治疗与再出血率升高无关。然而,由于连续 PPI 治疗在高危患者中更为常用,因此可能被认为更有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验