Key result
Chronic use of proton pump inhibitors was significantly associated with increased nutritional risk (OR 3.34) in patients recovering from acute cardiovascular treatments.
Why the study?
Does proton pump inhibitor therapy increase nutritional risk in patients scheduled for cardiovascular rehabilitation after treatment for ischaemic and valvular heart disease?
Observational (n=536)
No
Does proton pump inhibitor therapy increase nutritional risk in patients scheduled for cardiovascular rehabilitation after treatment for ischaemic and valvular heart disease?
Odds Ratio: 3.34 (95% CI 2.26–4.94)
Absolute Event Rate: 80.6% vs 55.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
Proton pump inhibitor utilization is highly prevalent in patients recovering from cardiovascular treatments and is significantly associated with increased nutritional risk, lower hematocrit, and older age.
May prompt nutritional screening in chronic PPI users post-cardiac treatment; leaves open causality and requires prospective confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Multiple and yet uncertain connections exist between cardiovascular diseases and the nutritional status of patients, particularly in relation to cardiovascular treatments. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are among the most commonly used group of drugs. AIM: To analyse utilisation of PPI in association with nutritional risk of patients scheduled for rehabilitation after treatment for ischaemic and valvular heart disease. METHODS: Retrospective analyses on a consecutive sample of patients, which included drug utilisation of PPI and nutritional risk screening, using a standardised NRS-2002 tool. The patients (n = 536) were divided into groups based on previous cardiovascular treatments and use of PPI. RESULTS: Nearly half of the patients (244, 46.1%) had PPI in their chronic therapy despite the clinically negligible prevalence of conditions that are their fundamental indications. The odds for using PPI in patients with increased nutritional risk, estimated by logistic regression, were 3.34 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.26-4.94), p < 0.001. Receiver operating curve analyses also revealed significant differences of PPI utilisation in connection with NRS-2002 > 3: positive likelihood-ratio (LR) 2.35 (95% CI 2.10-2.60); negative LR 0.46 (95% CI 0.4-0.6); area under the curve (AUC) 0.720; p < 0.001; as well as the percentage weigh loss history > 6.36% (positive LR 2.22 [95% CI 2.00-2.50]; negative LR 0.41 [95% CI 0.30-0.50]; AUC 0.707; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilisation of PPI was found to be of relatively high prevalence and significantly associated with parameters of nutritional risk screening. Furthermore, it was in correlation with the age of patients and the existence of chronic kidney disease, which are well-established predispositions for poor nutritional status. Nutritional risk seems to be additionally negatively challenged by utilisation of PPI due to gastric malabsorption and anaemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boban et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Ischaemic and valvular heart disease (n=536). Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) vs. Not using PPI was evaluated on Increased nutritional risk (NRS-2002 > 3) (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.26-4.94, p=<0.001). Chronic use of proton pump inhibitors was significantly associated with increased nutritional risk (OR 3.34) in patients recovering from acute cardiovascular treatments.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: