Literature DB >> 25243327

A survey of prescriber perceptions about the prevention of stress-related mucosal bleeding in the intensive care unit.

C R Preslaski1, S W Mueller, T H Kiser, D N Fish, R MacLaren.   

Abstract

WHAT IS KNOWN AND
OBJECTIVE: Practices vary between institutions and amongst prescribers regarding when to initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), which agent to choose (including doses and frequencies) and rationale, and decisions about escalation or discontinuation of therapy. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the perceptions of prescribers about risk assessment of stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) and practice patterns of SUP.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 800 US critical care prescribers using the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The levels of agreement with specific statements were rated on a nine-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: Of 712 eligible recipients, 245 (34·4%) completed the questionnaire. Respondents were primarily attending physicians (81·2%) working in adult medical or surgical (59·2%) intensive care units. Mucosal ischaemia was identified as the pathophysiological cause of SRMB by 110 (44·9%) respondents. Respondents agreed that risk factors for SRMB were acute hepatic failure, anticoagulant use, burns >35%, coagulopathy, absence of enteral feeding, recent gastroduodenal ulcer, corticosteroid use, Helicobacter pylori infection, neurologic injury, trauma, NSAID use, mechanical ventilation, shock and sepsis. Histamine subtype 2 receptor antagonists (58·4%) and proton pump inhibitors (39·6%) were the most frequently chosen agents. No consensus was reached about whether either class is associated with clostridium difficile infection or nosocomial pneumonia. Reasons to discontinue therapy included clinically improved patient status (73·1%), extubation (68·2%), reversal of 'nil-by-mouth' (68·6%) and transfer to a non-ICU setting (67·8%). WHAT IS NEW AND
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists in the perceptions surrounding risk factors for SRMB and prescribing patterns for SUP therapy likely because limited or conflicting data are available addressing these issues. Opportunities exist to educate prescribers and conduct research about the pathologic cause and risk factors for SRMB, the preferred class of agents, and the appropriate discontinuation of therapy.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clostridium difficile; critical care; histamine antagonist; pneumonia; proton pump inhibitor; risk factors; stress ulcer; survey

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25243327     DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pharm Ther        ISSN: 0269-4727            Impact factor:   2.512


  7 in total

Review 1.  Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care.

Authors:  Jeffrey F Barletta; Alicia J Mangram; Joseph F Sucher; Victor Zach
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.210

2.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

Authors:  Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Assessment of pharmacologic prophylaxis use against stress ulcer in the medical wards of University of Gondar Hospital.

Authors:  Boressa Adugna Horsa; Yohanes Ayele; Mohammed Biset Ayalew
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2019-02-02

4.  The SUP-ICU Trial: Does It Confirm or Condemn the Practice of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis?

Authors:  Jeffrey F Barletta; Mitchell S Buckley; Robert MacLaren
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2019-08-02

5.  Combined application of nasogastric tubes and nasointestinal tubes in neurosurgical intensive care patients with stress ulceration: a novel solution to treatment and early enteral nutrition.

Authors:  Tianshu Lu; Jingyu Guan
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-10-12

6.  Potentially inappropriate medications at discharge among elderly patients at a single tertiary emergency medical institution in Japan: a retrospective cross-sectional observational study.

Authors:  Kenta Aida; Kazunari Azuma; Shiro Mishima; Yuri Ishii; Shoji Suzuki; Jun Oda
Journal:  Acute Med Surg       Date:  2021-11-29

7.  Adherence to stress-related mucosal damage prophylaxis guideline in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Niloofar Rafinazari; Saeed Abbasi; Shadi Farsaei; Marjan Mansourian; Peyman Adibi
Journal:  J Res Pharm Pract       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.