...
首页> 外文期刊>Critical care : >Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

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

机译:重症监护病房接受肠内营养预防应激性溃疡的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

BackgroundPharmacologic 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsSeven 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). ConclusionsOur results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.
机译:背景技术药物应激性溃疡预防(SUP)推荐用于重症患者,这些患者具有与应激有关的胃肠道(GI)出血的高风险。但是,对于接受肠内喂养的患者,SUP的预防作用尚不清楚。因此,我们进行了一项随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析,以评估肠内喂养患者对应激相关胃肠道出血和其他临床结局的药理学SUP的影响。方法我们从开始到2017年9月30日搜索PubMed,Embase和Cochrane数据库。符合条件的试验是将ICU肠饲患者中的SUP与安慰剂或无预防药比较的RCT。结果表示为风险比(RR)和平均差异(MD),并伴随95%置信区间(CI)。探索了异质性,亚组分析,敏感性分析和发表偏倚。结果共纳入七项研究(n = 889名患者)。两组之间的胃肠道出血无统计学差异(RR 0.80; 95%CI,0.49至1.31,p =?0.37)。进一步的亚组分析和敏感性分析证实了这一发现。此外,SUP对总死亡率(RR 1.21; 95%CI,0.94至1.56,p =?0.14),艰难梭菌感染(RR 0.89; 95%CI,0.25至3.19,p =?0.86),长度没有影响。留在重症监护病房的时间(MD 0.04天; 95%CI,?0.79至0.87,p =?0.92),机械通气时间(MD?0.38?天; 95%CI,?1.48至0.72,p =?0.50 ),但与医院获得性肺炎的风险增加相关(RR 1.53; 95%CI,1.04至2.27; p =?0.03)。结论我们的结果表明,对于接受肠内喂养的患者,药理学上的SUP无效,联合干预甚至可能增加医院内肺炎的风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号