Sean van Diepen1,2, Tim Coulson3,4,5, Xiaoming Wang6, Dawn Opgenorth1, Danny J Zuege7,8, Jo Harris9, Malik Agyemang10, Daniel J Niven7,10, Rinaldo Bellomo4,5,11,12, Stephen E Wright13, Paul J Young4,5,14,15, Sean M Bagshaw1,8. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta, and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Critical Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 6. Health Services Statistical and Analytic Methods, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 7. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 8. Critical Care Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 9. eCritical Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 10. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 11. Department of Intensive Care, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 12. Data Analytics Research & Evaluation Centre, University of Melbourne and Austin Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 13. Intensive Care Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 14. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 15. Intensive Care Unit, Wellington Regional Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The comparative effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the cardiac surgical intensive care unit population is uncertain. Although the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial reported a higher risk of mortality in the PPI arm with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding, detailed information on surgical variables and clinically relevant surgical subgroups was not available. METHODS: The analysis included all Canadian cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial. Data were electronically linked using unique patient identifiers to a clinical information system. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infections, ventilator-associated conditions and length of stay. RESULTS: We studied 823 (50.6%) randomized to PPIs and 805 (49.4%) to histamine-2-receptor blockers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in hospital mortality [PPI: 4.3% vs histamine-2 receptor blockers: 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.70], gastrointestinal bleeding (3.9% vs 4.8%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66-1.81), C. difficile infections (0.9% vs 0.1%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.59), ventilator-associated conditions (1.6% vs 1.7%, aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00) or median length of stay (9.2 vs 9.8 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 85% CI 0.99-1.13). No significant treatment differences were observed among subgroups of interest or per-protocol populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a secondary analysis of cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial in Canada, no differences in effectiveness or safety were observed between use of PPIs and histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.
OBJECTIVES: The comparative effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the cardiac surgical intensive care unit population is uncertain. Although the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial reported a higher risk of mortality in the PPI arm with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding, detailed information on surgical variables and clinically relevant surgical subgroups was not available. METHODS: The analysis included all Canadian cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial. Data were electronically linked using unique patient identifiers to a clinical information system. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infections, ventilator-associated conditions and length of stay. RESULTS: We studied 823 (50.6%) randomized to PPIs and 805 (49.4%) to histamine-2-receptor blockers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in hospital mortality [PPI: 4.3% vs histamine-2 receptor blockers: 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.70], gastrointestinal bleeding (3.9% vs 4.8%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66-1.81), C. difficile infections (0.9% vs 0.1%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.59), ventilator-associated conditions (1.6% vs 1.7%, aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00) or median length of stay (9.2 vs 9.8 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 85% CI 0.99-1.13). No significant treatment differences were observed among subgroups of interest or per-protocol populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a secondary analysis of cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial in Canada, no differences in effectiveness or safety were observed between use of PPIs and histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.
Authors: Deepak L Bhatt; Byron L Cryer; Charles F Contant; Marc Cohen; Angel Lanas; Thomas J Schnitzer; Thomas L Shook; Pablo Lapuerta; Mark A Goldsmith; Loren Laine; Benjamin M Scirica; Sabina A Murphy; Christopher P Cannon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hans J Geissler; Uwe M Fischer; Stephanie Grunert; Ferdinand Kuhn-Régnier; Arnulf Hoelscher; Robert H G Schwinger; Uwe Mehlhorn; Khosro Hekmat Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2006-02-08
Authors: Marc A Benoit; Sean M Bagshaw; Colleen M Norris; Mohamad Zibdawi; Wu Dat Chin; David B Ross; Sean van Diepen Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: T Ben-Menachem; R Fogel; R V Patel; M Touchette; B J Zarowitz; N Hadzijahic; G Divine; J Verter; R S Bresalier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1994-10-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Farzan Filsoufi; Parwis B Rahmanian; Javier G Castillo; Corey Scurlock; Peter E Legnani; David H Adams Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Paul J Young; Sean M Bagshaw; Andrew B Forbes; Alistair D Nichol; Stephen E Wright; Michael Bailey; Rinaldo Bellomo; Richard Beasley; Kathy Brickell; Glenn M Eastwood; David J Gattas; Frank van Haren; Edward Litton; Diane M Mackle; Colin J McArthur; Shay P McGuinness; Paul R Mouncey; Leanlove Navarra; Dawn Opgenorth; David Pilcher; Manoj K Saxena; Steve A Webb; Daisy Wiley; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aws Almufleh; F Daniel Ramirez; Derek So; Michel Le May; Aun-Yeong Chong; Nazi Torabi; Benjamin Hibbert Journal: Cardiology Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 1.869
Authors: D J Cook; L E Griffith; S D Walter; G H Guyatt; M O Meade; D K Heyland; A Kirby; M Tryba Journal: Crit Care Date: 2001-10-05 Impact factor: 9.097