OBJECTIVE: To identify the level of current intensivist's knowledge regarding risk assessment and intensive care unit (ICU) clinical practice pertaining to stress-related mucosal bleeding, including pharmacologic approaches for stress ulcer prevention. DESIGN: A nationwide survey of critical care physicians. STUDY POPULATION: Two thousand random physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 519 (26%) of 2000, with data analysis from 501 (25.1%) usable surveys. Respondents were affiliated with internal medicine (44.3%), surgery (42.3%), and anesthesiology (12.6%). Gut ischemia was indicated as the perceived major cause of stress ulceration (59.7%). The estimated incidence of clinically important bleeding was 2% or less by 62% of respondents; however, 28.6% of physicians surveyed initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis in all ICU patients, regardless of bleeding risk. Respiratory failure was most frequently indicated as a reason for stress ulcer prophylaxis (68.6%), followed by shock/hypotension (49.4%), sepsis (39.4%), and head injury/major neurologic insult (35.2%). The first-line agents selected for stress ulcer prophylaxis include histamine-2 receptor antagonists (63.9%), followed by proton pump inhibitors (23.1%), and sucralfate (12.2%). Concern for nosocomial pneumonia was regarded as more prevalent with antisecretory therapies in those who chose sucralfate (61%) as initial therapy compared with overall respondents (26.9%) (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of intensivists surveyed recognize stress-related mucosal bleeding as a relatively infrequent event; however, implementation of a stress ulcer prophylaxis risk stratification scheme for ICU patients is necessary. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are consistently perceived as appropriate initial agents, although proton pump inhibitors have become first-line therapy in an increasing percentage of critical care patients, despite limited data regarding their use in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the level of current intensivist's knowledge regarding risk assessment and intensive care unit (ICU) clinical practice pertaining to stress-related mucosal bleeding, including pharmacologic approaches for stress ulcer prevention. DESIGN: A nationwide survey of critical care physicians. STUDY POPULATION: Two thousand random physician members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 519 (26%) of 2000, with data analysis from 501 (25.1%) usable surveys. Respondents were affiliated with internal medicine (44.3%), surgery (42.3%), and anesthesiology (12.6%). Gut ischemia was indicated as the perceived major cause of stress ulceration (59.7%). The estimated incidence of clinically important bleeding was 2% or less by 62% of respondents; however, 28.6% of physicians surveyed initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis in all ICU patients, regardless of bleeding risk. Respiratory failure was most frequently indicated as a reason for stress ulcer prophylaxis (68.6%), followed by shock/hypotension (49.4%), sepsis (39.4%), and head injury/major neurologic insult (35.2%). The first-line agents selected for stress ulcer prophylaxis include histamine-2 receptor antagonists (63.9%), followed by proton pump inhibitors (23.1%), and sucralfate (12.2%). Concern for nosocomial pneumonia was regarded as more prevalent with antisecretory therapies in those who chose sucralfate (61%) as initial therapy compared with overall respondents (26.9%) (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of intensivists surveyed recognize stress-related mucosal bleeding as a relatively infrequent event; however, implementation of a stress ulcer prophylaxis risk stratification scheme for ICU patients is necessary. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are consistently perceived as appropriate initial agents, although proton pump inhibitors have become first-line therapy in an increasing percentage of critical care patients, despite limited data regarding their use in this population.
Authors: Lan Liu; Jaladanki N Rao; Tongtong Zou; Lan Xiao; Alexis Smith; Ran Zhuang; Douglas J Turner; Jian-Ying Wang Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 4.249