Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2025

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
[Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in septic patients: a retrospective cohort study based on large
Minqiang Huang1, Lei Kuang2, Ming Han1
1Department of Emergency, Shenzhen University General Hospital, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China.
Objective:
To evaluate the effects and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) versus no prophylaxis in adult septic patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was conducted, the data was extracted from Electronic Intensive Care Unit-Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). All patients who received proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or combined/sequential use for SUP within the first 48 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) admission were enrolled in the SUP group, those who did not received any SUP were enrolled in the non-SUP group. The differences of in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay (LOS), the incidence of GIB and secondary infection complications between the two groups were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the distributions of study variables between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis was performed according to whether SUP was used for more than 3 days. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the factors influencing the outcome of GIB and secondary pneumonia.
Results:
A total of 11 413 patients were included in the final analysis, with 9 799 patients in SUP group and 1 614 in non-SUP group. A 1:1 PSM created 1 600 patients in each cohort. (1) Baseline characteristics: compared with SUP group, patients in non-SUP group were older [years old: 69.0 (56.0, 80.0) vs. 67.0 (56.0, 78.0)], acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV (APACHE IV) score and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score were significantly lower [APACHE IV score: 65 (50, 73) vs. 72 (58, 87), SOFA score: 5 (4, 7) vs. 7 (5, 9)], higher rates of underlying diseases such as hypertension and diabetes [hypertension: 15.6% (252/1 614) vs. 12.2% (1 196/9 779), diabetes: 4.5% (72/1 614) vs. 3.3% (325/9 779), both P < 0.05], indicating that patients in the SUP group were more severe. (2) Comparison of clinical outcome: before PSM, SUP group had significantly higher in-hospital mortality [17.2% (1 688/9 799) vs. 10.9% (176/1 614)], longer LOS [days: 4.4 (2.9, 7.7) vs. 3.1 (2.5, 4.3)], and higher incidence of secondary pneumonia than non-SUP group [11.3% (1 112/9 799) vs. 6.8% (110/1 614)], with significant differences (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of GIB and Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) between the two groups. After PSM, no significant differences were observed between the two groups with regard to in-hospital mortality, incidence of GIB and CDI. However, the SUP group had longer LOS [days: 3.9 (2.8, 6.6) vs. 3.1 (2.5, 4.3)], and higher incidence of secondary pneumonia [10.9% (174/1 600) vs. 6.8% (108/1 600)] compared with non-SUP group, the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that compared with SUP < 3 days group, patients in SUP ≥ 3 days group had higher disease severity score [APACHE IV score: 66 (51, 79) vs. 62 (48, 72), SOFA score: 6 (4, 8) vs. 5 (4, 7), both P < 0.05], in addition, patients in SUP ≥ 3 days group had higher in-hospital mortality, incidence of GIB and secondary pneumonia (16.4% vs. 10.7%, 6.1% vs. 1.8%, 19.0% vs. 8.6%, respectively), and longer ICU LOS [days: 6.6 (4.1, 11.8) vs. 3.5 (2.6, 5.3), all P < 0.05]. (3) Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that SUP ≥ 3 days group was associated with more GIB than that of non-SUP group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.84, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 1.07-3.08, P = 0.030], and the incidence of GIB was less in SUP < 3 days group than that of non-SUP group (OR = 0.57, 95%CI was 0.34-0.94, P = 0.020). When compared with non-SUP group, the risk of secondary pneumonia was increased both in SUP ≥ 3 days group and SUP < 3 days group (OR values were 2.95 and 1.34, 95%CI were 2.10-4.13 and 1.01-1.77, P values were < 0.001 and 0.040, respectively).
Conclusions:
Among critically ill adult patients with sepsis at risk for GIB, SUP showed no effect on reducing in-hospital mortality, the rate of GIB and CDI, but was associated with increased risk of secondary pneumonia and prolonged LOS.
More Related Videos
03:05Author Spotlight: Advancing Early Detection and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Tumors
Published on: February 16, 2024
10:38Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Peptic Ulcer Disease IV: Management
The therapeutic approach involves ensuring adequate rest, implementing drug therapy, promoting smoking cessation, making dietary modifications, and emphasizing long-term follow-up care.
Pharmacological management
The prevailing therapy for peptic ulcers involves a combination of managing the patient's current...
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
Peptic Ulcer Disease V: Surgical Management and Nursing Care
Surgical Interventions for Peptic Ulcer Disease
Peptic Ulcer Disease II: Pathophysiology
Damaging agents such as Helicobacter pylori, gastric acid, pepsin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can weaken the mucosal defense, allowing hydrogen ions to infiltrate back and harm epithelial cells.
Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Sucralfate as Mucosal Protective Agents
In this scenario, mucosal protective agents like sucralfate play an essential role. Sucralfate, a complex of sulfated sucrose and aluminum hydroxide, demonstrates its usefulness in acidic conditions,...
Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Prostaglandin Analogs as Mucosal Protective Agents
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can induce peptic ulcers by inhibiting cyclooxygenase, decreasing...