Literature DB >> 6966835

Failure of gastric pH control by antacids or cimetidine in the critically ill: a valid sign of sepsis.

L F Martin, M H Max, H C Polk.   

Abstract

To compare the ability of antacids and cimetidine to control gastric pH and potential hemorrhage, 77 critically ill patients were randomized into two groups initially receiving either antacids (37 patients) or cimetidine (40 patients). Gastric pH was monitored hourly and the dosage of medication adjusted as required to maintain gastric pH above 4. Forty-nine patients maintained a pH above 4 while receiving a standard dose of antacids (29 patients) or cimetidine (20 patients). Only 8 of these 49 patients proved to be septic, compared to 20 of the 28 patients who required additional medication to maintain pH above 4 (P less than 0.001). There were five episodes of gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurring in septic patients who had a gastric pH consistently below 4 despite treatment. Excluding septic patients, 8 of 23 failed to maintain a gastric pH of 4 on cimetidine compared to 0 of 26 receiving antacids (P less than 0.005). The data suggest that (1) persistent failure of antacids and/or cimetidine to maintain gastric pH above 4 is yet another indicator of often unappreciated infection, (2) maintaining gastric pH above 4 largely prevents gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and (3) cimetidine is not as consistently effective as antacids in maintaining gastric pH above 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1980        PMID: 6966835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  20 in total

1.  Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH patterns in ICU patients on ranitidine.

Authors:  J G Moore; T P Clemmer; S Taylor; A L Bishop; S Maggio
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  The rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in a general ICU population: a retrospective study.

Authors:  G Gurman; M Samri; B Sarov; J E Bearman; I Heilig
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Comparison of omeprazole and ranitidine for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

Authors:  M J Levy; C B Seelig; N J Robinson; J E Ranney
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Control of gastric pH with ranitidine in patients with Crohn's disease receiving total parenteral nutrition. Comparison of two intravenous regimens.

Authors:  T Matsui; A Motomura; M Arita; Y Takeyama; T Sakurai; T Yao
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 7.527

5.  Prospective, randomized comparison of lansoprazole suspension, and intermittent intravenous famotidine on gastric pH and acid production in critically ill neurosurgical patients.

Authors:  Gretchen M Brophy; Marcia L Brackbill; Katherine L Bidwell; Donald F Brophy
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.210

6.  Peptic ulcer complications in high-risk patients.

Authors:  B E Stabile; T M Chang; J R Hiatt; E Passaro
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Stress ulcers during live Escherichia coli sepsis. The role of acid and bile.

Authors:  M Rees; J C Bowen
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1982-05       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Misoprostol versus antacid titration for preventing stress ulcers in postoperative surgical ICU patients.

Authors:  M J Zinner; E B Rypins; L R Martin; O Jonasson; E L Hoover; E A Swab; T D Fakouhi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  pH-dependent bactericidal barrier to gram-negative aerobes: its relevance to airway colonisation and prophylaxis of acid aspiration and stress ulcer syndromes--study in vitro.

Authors:  S Mehta; J F Archer; J Mills
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  The comparative efficacy of cimetidine and ranitidine in controlling gastric pH in critically ill patients.

Authors:  S R Reid; C D Bayliff
Journal:  Can Anaesth Soc J       Date:  1986-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.