Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Jan 28;22(1):20.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hui-Bin Huang  1   2 , Wei Jiang  1 , Chun-Yao Wang  1 , Han-Yu Qin  1 , Bin Du  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hui-Bin Huang et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.

Results: Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, -0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.38 days; 95% CI, -1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03).

Conclusions: Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.

Keywords: Critically ill; Enteral nutrition; Meta-analysis; Stress ulcer prophylaxis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection process for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the meta-analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot showing the effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis for gastrointestinal bleeding. M-H Mantel-Haenszel
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot showing the effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on overall mortality (a), Clostridium difficile infection (b), length of intensive care unit stay (c), duration of mechanical ventilation (d), hospital-acquired pneumonia (e) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (f) M-H Mantel-Haenszel
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Borthwick M, Bendel S, McArthur C, Cook D, Nielsen N, Pelosi P, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(5):576–85. doi: 10.1111/aas.12508. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Faisy C, Guerot E, Diehl JL, Iftimovici E, Fagon JY. Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with and without stress-ulcer prophylaxis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(8):1306–13. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1863-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zandstra DF, Stoutenbeek CP. The virtual absence of stress-ulceration related bleeding in ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation without any prophylaxis. A prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20(5):335–40. doi: 10.1007/BF01720905. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(11):2222–28. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f17adf. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guillamondegui OD, Gunter OL Jr, Bonadies JA, Coates JE, Kurek SJ, De Moya MA, Sing RF, Sori AJ. Practice management guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Chicago: Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. 2008:1–24.

MeSH terms

Substances