Why the study?
Patients receiving ECMO generally receive PPIs or H2RAs to avoid major gastrointestinal bleeding, but outcomes between the two strategies for stress ulcer prophylaxis during ECMO had not been directly compared.
Do proton pump inhibitors compared to histamine-2 receptor antagonists reduce gastrointestinal bleeding or in-hospital mortality in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation?
Do proton pump inhibitors compared to histamine-2 receptor antagonists reduce gastrointestinal bleeding or in-hospital mortality in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation?
In patients undergoing ECMO, stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs versus H2RAs resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal bleeding requiring endoscopic haemostasis and in-hospital mortality.
Comparable rates with PPIs versus H2RAs in ECMO; observational data leave optimal stress ulcer prophylaxis open for randomized trials.
Purpose Patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) generally receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H 2 RAs) to avoid major gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aim was to compare outcomes between patients receiving PPIs and H 2 RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis during ECMO. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database, using data recorded from 1 July 2010 to 31 March 2017. We defined patients who received PPIs within 2 days after starting ECMO as the PPIs group and those who received H 2 RAs within 2 days after starting ECMO as the H 2 RAs group. We performed propensity score matching to compare outcomes. The primary outcomes were gastrointestinal bleeding requiring endoscopic haemostasis and in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were red blood cell transfusion, hospital-acquired pneumonia and Clostridium difficile infection during hospitalisation. Results Of 11 328 eligible patients, 9738 received PPIs and 1590 received H 2 RAs. Propensity score matching created 1556 pairs. No significant differences were seen regarding endoscopic haemostasis (1.2% vs 0.8%; p=0.37), in-hospital mortality (53.0% vs 53.1%; p=0.94), red blood cell transfusion rates (91.4% vs 89.7%; p=0.11), hospital-acquired pneumonia (13.0% vs 12.4%; p=0.59) or C. difficile infection (0.1% vs 0.2%; p=0.32) between the PPIs and H 2 RAs groups, respectively. Conclusion We found no differences in the evaluated outcomes between the PPIs and H 2 RAs groups. Both PPIs and H 2 RAs are treatment options for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients undergoing ECMO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kondo et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: