Hugh D. Fuller

A Comparison of Sucralfate and Ranitidine for the Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND Critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation are at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding from stress ulcers. There are conflicting data on the effect of histamine H2-receptor antagonists and the cytoprotective agent sucralfate on rates of gastrointestinal bleeding, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and mortality. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we compared sucralfate with the H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 1200 patients who required mechanical ventilation. Patients received either nasogastric sucralfate suspension (1 g every six hours) and an intravenous placebo or intravenous ranitidine (50 mg every eight hours) and a nasogastric placebo. RESULTS The patients in the two groups had similar base-line characteristics. Clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 10 of 596 (1.7 percent) of the patients receiving ranitidine, as compared with 23 of 604 (3.8 percent) of those receiving sucralfate (relative risk, 0.44; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.92; P=0.02). In the ranitidine group, 114 of 596 patients (19.1 percent) had ventilator-associated pneumonia, as compared with 98 of 604 (16.2 percent) in the sucralfate group (relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.51; P=0.19). There was no significant difference between the groups in mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (23.5 percent in the ranitidine group and 22.9 percent in the sucralfate group) or the duration of the stay in the ICU (median, nine days in both groups). CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, those receiving ranitidine had a significantly lower rate of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding than those treated with sucralfate. There were no significant differences in the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, the duration of the stay in the ICU, or mortality.

A comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.

BACKGROUND Critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation are at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding from stress ulcers. There are conflicting data on the effect of histamine H2-receptor antagonists and the cytoprotective agent sucralfate on rates of gastrointestinal bleeding, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and mortality. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we compared sucralfate with the H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 1200 patients who required mechanical ventilation. Patients received either nasogastric sucralfate suspension (1 g every six hours) and an intravenous placebo or intravenous ranitidine (50 mg every eight hours) and a nasogastric placebo. RESULTS The patients in the two groups had similar base-line characteristics. Clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 10 of 596 (1.7 percent) of the patients receiving ranitidine, as compared with 23 of 604 (3.8 percent) of those receiving sucralfate (relative risk, 0.44; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.92; P=0.02). In the ranitidine group, 114 of 596 patients (19.1 percent) had ventilator-associated pneumonia, as compared with 98 of 604 (16.2 percent) in the sucralfate group (relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.51; P=0.19). There was no significant difference between the groups in mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (23.5 percent in the ranitidine group and 22.9 percent in the sucralfate group) or the duration of the stay in the ICU (median, nine days in both groups). CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, those receiving ranitidine had a significantly lower rate of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding than those treated with sucralfate. There were no significant differences in the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, the duration of the stay in the ICU, or mortality.

Use of daily Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores to predict individual patient survival rate

ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of daily Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring in the prediction of individual mortality rates for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DesignA prospective study of consecutive patients admitted to four university-affiliated ICUs. SettingMedical-surgical ICUs of four tertiary care academic hospitals. PatientsDaily data from 3,350 consecutive ICU admissions, excluding postoperative cardiac patients, were collected from January to December 1991. Measurements and Main ResultsDaily APACHE II scores were calculated for all patients and correlated with both ICU and hospital mortality. The ability of an absolute level or a predetermined algorithm, based on these scores, to predict mortality was examined. Day 1 APACHE II scores ranged from 0 to 55 (mean 18). We were unable to replicate the suggestion by Chang et al. that 100% hospital mortality was predicted by the following APACHE II scores: a) >35 at admission; b) 30 to 35 at admission, with a decrease of ≤3 from day 1 to day 2; or c) >27 on any day, with an increase of >2 from the previous day. We were unable to adjust these criteria to avoid a false prediction of death with any remaining useful sensitivity. Mortality rates of 158 (69%) deaths per 229 patients, 68 (62%) deaths per 110 patients, and 110 (48%) deaths per 230 patients were obtained, respectively, for these criteria. ConclusionsAdmission or daily APACHE II scores do not predict individual patient mortality. The adjustments needed in the algorithm that was used to avoid a false prediction of death render sensitivity so low that it would be impractical to limit therapy on this basis alone. (Crit Care Med 1994; 22:1402–1405)

Comparison of general anesthesia with and without lumbar epidural for total hip arthroplasty: Effects of epidural block on hip arthroplasty☆

STUDY OBJECTIVES To determine whether lumbar epidural anesthesia, when combined with general anesthesia, decreases perioperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT), cardiac dysrhythmias, and ischemia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). DESIGN Randomized, controlled study. SETTING A university hospital. PATIENTS 37 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, undergoing elective THA. INTERVENTION Patients were divided into two statistically comparable groups: Group GA = general anesthesia; Group CEGA = general anesthesia plus lumbar epidural anesthesia. All patients had 48-hour perioperative Holter monitoring, applied on admission, the day prior to surgery. In both groups, general anesthesia was induced with thiopental sodium and muscle relaxant, and maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide, isoflurane, opioid, and muscle relaxant. Group B received lumbar epidural anesthesia with 10 ml 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine prior to anesthesia induction. Blood loss was measured by suction bottle contents, sponge weights, and collection drainage. DVT was assessed with postoperative leg scanning, plethysmography, and venogram. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Intraoperative blood loss was less after combined epidural-general anesthesia (663.8 ml +/- 299.0 ml) than after general anesthesia alone (1,259.2 ml +/- 366.0 ml). The difference was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.00005). No difference was found between the two groups in postoperative blood loss, incidence of DVT, cardiac dysrhythmias, or ischemia. CONCLUSION Combined regional-general anesthesia decreases intraoperative blood loss in THA, and thereby offers an advantage over general anesthesia alone.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of a ketoconazole practice guideline for ARDS prophylaxis

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a practice guideline using ketoconazole for the prevention of the adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS In hospital A (study hospital), we developed a guideline for ketoconazole prophylaxis in patients at high risk of ARDS using evidence from two randomized trials. We prospectively implemented the guideline using intensive care unit (ICU) teaching sessions, in-services, informational posters, and patient-specific individual audit and feedback. ICU caregivers in hospital B (concurrent control hospital) did not participate in the guideline development or implementation and were unaware of the conduct of the study. RESULTS Patients at risk of ARDS were similar in hospitals A and B. Implementation of the guideline was associated with a significantly higher use of ketoconazole use for ARDS prevention (P < .0001) and a significantly lower rate of ARDS (P < .05) in hospital A compared with hospital B. Mortality, duration of ventilation, and ICU stay were similar. CONCLUSION Development and implementation of a prophylactic ketoconazole practice guideline for ICU patients at high risk of ARDS was associated with a higher prescription of ketoconazole and a lower rate of ARDS in the study hospital than in the control hospital.

Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND The efficacy of prophylaxis against stress ulcers in preventing gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients has led to its widespread use. The side effects and cost of prophylaxis, however, necessitate targeting preventive therapy to those patients most likely to benefit. METHODS We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study in which we evaluated potential risk factors for stress ulceration in patients admitted to intensive care units and documented the occurrence of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (defined as overt bleeding in association with hemodynamic compromise or the need for blood transfusion). RESULTS Of 2252 patients, 33 (1.5 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 2.1 percent) had clinically important bleeding. Two strong independent risk factors for bleeding were identified: respiratory failure (odds ratio, 15.6) and coagulopathy (odds ratio, 4.3). Of 847 patients who had one or both of these risk factors, 31 (3.7 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.5 to 5.2 percent) had clinically important bleeding. Of 1405 patients without these risk factors, 2 (0.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.5 percent) had clinically important bleeding. The mortality rate was 48.5 percent in the group with bleeding and 9.1 percent in the group without bleeding (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Few critically ill patients have clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and therefore prophylaxis against stress ulcers can be safely withheld from critically ill patients unless they have coagulopathy or require mechanical ventilation.