Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Should prophylaxis against stress ulcer be abandoned for patients in intensive care?
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
The meta-analysis of Messori et al clearly confirms the lack of
usefulness of systematic prophylaxis against stress ulcer with
H2 receptor antagonists or sucralfate,1 but an
important issue is left unanswered by this study and by the
meta-analysis of Cook et al.2 Indeed, some critically ill
patients receive prophylaxis against stress ulcers for specific
reasons, including brain injury (trauma, surgery, haemorrhage), steroid
treatment, and coagulation abnormalities.
Does the available literature support such prophylaxis for these
patients? In other words, should intensivists prescribe stress ulcer
prophylaxis for selected subgroups of patients? If the available literature does not resolve this issue, should the further trials suggested by Messori et al stratify the groups according to the patient's condition?
| 1. |
Messori A, Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Gorini M, Corrado A.
Bleeding and pneumonia in intensive care patients given ranitidine and sucralfate for prevention of stress ulcer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BMJ
2000;
321:
1103-1106 |
| 2. |
Cook D, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland DK, Griffith LE, Buckingham L, et al.
Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: resolving discordant meta-analyses.
JAMA
1996;
275:
308-314 |
Occult blood loss is clinically important
EDITOR Firstly, patients are rarely able to give informed consent, which
places increased pressure on researchers and ethics committees to
ensure
Intensive care has always been a difficult area for research.