Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in australian and new zealand intensive care units

Critical Care and Resuscitation

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 170-174

  Eastwood, Glenn M ^a   Litton, Ed ^b,c   Bellomo, Rinaldo ^a   Bailey, Michasel J ^d   Festa, Mario ^e   Beasley, Richard W ^f   Young, Paul J ^f,g  

^a AUSTIN HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre   (Australia)

^e CHILDREN S HOSPITAL AT WESTMEAD   (Australia)

^f MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALAND   (New Zealand)

^g WELLINGTON HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HISTAMINE H2 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTENSIVE CARE; NEW ZEALAND; PEPTIC ULCER; PSEUDOMEMBRANOUS COLITIS; VENTILATOR ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; AUSTRALIA; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; DATA COLLECTION; ENTEROCOLITIS, PSEUDOMEMBRANOUS; HISTAMINE H2 ANTAGONISTS; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE; NEW ZEALAND; PEPTIC ULCER; PNEUMONIA, VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED; PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS;

EID: 84907202300     PISSN: 14412772     EISSN: 26529335     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. 1 Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, et al. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 693-705.
2. MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 564-74.
3. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 11-22.
4. Bateman BT, Bykov K, Choudhry NK, et al. Type of stress ulcer prophylaxis and risk of nosocomial pneumonia in cardiac surgical patient: cohort study. BMJ 2013; 347: f5416.
5. Laheij RJ, Sturkenboom MC, Hassing RJ, et al. Risk of communityacquired pneumonia and use of gastric acid-suppressive drugs. JAMA 2004; 292: 1955-60.
6. Rodríguex LA, Ruigómez A, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Acidsuppressive drugs and community-acquired pneumonia. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 800-6.
7. Miano TA, Reichert MG, Houle TT, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia risk and stress ulcer prophylaxis: a comparison of pantoprazole vs ranitidine in cardiothoracic surgery patients. Chest 2009; 136: 440-7.
8. Loo VG, Bourgault AM, Poirier L, et al. Host and pathogen factors for Clostridium difficile infection and colonization. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1693-703.
9. Leonard J, Marshall JK, Moayyedi P. Systematic review of the risk of enteric infection in patients taking acid suppression. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2047-56.
10. Daley RJ, Rebuck JA, Welage LS, Rogers FB. Prevention of stress ulceration: current trends in critical care. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 2008-13.
11. Lam NP, Lê PD, Crawford SY, Patel S. National survey of stress ulcer prophylaxis. Crit Care Med 1999; 27: 98-103.
12. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including The Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 165-228.
13. Sadaka F, Trottier S, Smith T, et al. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis [poster]. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 894. doi: 10.1097/ 01.ccm.0000440132.04901.39.
14. Hewson-Conroy KM, Burrell AR, Elliot D, et al. Compliance with processes of care in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011; 39: 926-35.
15. Seguin R, Godwin M, MacDonald S, McCall M. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys. Can Fam Physician 2004; 50: 414-9.
16. McMahon SR, Iwamoto M, Massoudi MS, et al. Comparison of email, fax and postal surveys of paediatricians. Pediatrics 2003; 111: e299-303.