Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.||Austin Authors:||Eastwood, Glenn M ;Litton, Ed;Bellomo, Rinaldo ;Bailey, Michael J;Festa, Mario;Beasley, Richard W;Young, Paul J||Affiliation:||Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Intensive Care, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Department of Intensive Care, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Intensive Care, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
|Issue Date:||1-Sep-2014||Publication information:||Critical Care and Resuscitation; 16(3): 170-4||Abstract:||Intensivists frequently prescribe proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) to intensive care unit patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). Despite the common use of SUP medicines, there is limited high-level evidence to support the choice between them.To describe self-reported practice of SUP by Australian and New Zealand intensivists.An online questionnaire of intensivists between 13 January and 3 February 2014.Seventy-two intensivists responded to the survey: 61 (85%) practised in public metropolitan ICUs and 13/48 (27%) practised in paediatric ICUs. Fifty-two (72%) respondents indicated that PPIs were their preferred SUP medicine. Respondents estimated that an average of 84% of ventilated and 53% of non-ventilated patients received SUP medicines during their ICU admission. Seven respondents (9%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with H2RBs versus PPIs. Ten respondents (14%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk of Clostridium difficile infection, and 15 respondents (21%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk or ventilator-associated pneumonia with PPIs versus H2RBs. Most respondents (64 [89%]) agreed or strongly agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the choice of an optimal SUP medicine, and 58 respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed to patient enrollment in an RCT comparing PPIs with H2RBs.Most survey respondents felt that current evidence is insufficient to justify the preferential use of PPIs or H2RBs for SUP and would enroll patients in a comparative SUP RCT.||Gov't Doc #:||25161018||URI:||http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/12362||Journal:||Critical Care and Resuscitation||URL:||https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25161018||Type:||Journal Article||Subjects:||Attitude of Health Personnel
Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous.chemically induced
Histamine H2 Antagonists.adverse effects.therapeutic use
Peptic Ulcer.prevention & control
Proton Pump Inhibitors.adverse effects.therapeutic use
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Show full item record
checked on Jan 27, 2023
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.