Stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in critically ill patients (SUP-ICU trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Mette Krag, Anders Perner, Jørn Wetterslev, Matt P Wise, Mark Borthwick, Stepani Bendel, Paolo Pelosi, Frederik Keus, Anne Berit Guttormsen, Joerg C Schefold, Morten Hylander Møller, SUP-ICU investigators, Mette Krag, Anders Perner, Jørn Wetterslev, Matt P Wise, Mark Borthwick, Stepani Bendel, Paolo Pelosi, Frederik Keus, Anne Berit Guttormsen, Joerg C Schefold, Morten Hylander Møller, SUP-ICU investigators

Abstract

Background: Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and acid suppressants are frequently used prophylactically. However, stress ulcer prophylaxis may increase the risk of serious adverse events and, additionally, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is low. The aim of the SUP-ICU trial is to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in adult patients in the ICU. We hypothesise that stress ulcer prophylaxis reduces the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, but increases rates of nosocomial infections and myocardial ischaemia. The overall effect on mortality is unpredictable.

Methods/design: The SUP-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo (saline) in 3350 acutely ill ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome measure is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection or myocardial ischaemia, days alive without life support in the 90-day period, serious adverse reactions, 1-year mortality, and health economic analyses. The sample size will enable us to detect a 20 % relative risk difference (5 % absolute risk difference) in 90-day mortality assuming a 25 % event rate with a risk of type I error of 5 % and power of 90 %. The trial will be externally monitored according to Good Clinical Practice standards. Interim analyses will be performed after 1650 and 2500 patients.

Conclusion: The SUP-ICU trial will provide high-quality data on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in critically ill adult patients admitted in the ICU.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467621 .

Keywords: Adverse event; Critically ill; Gastrointestinal bleeding; Intensive care unit; Placebo; Randomised clinical trial; Stress ulcer prophylaxis.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ᅟ
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trial sequential analysis of all-cause mortality (16 trials)

References

    1. Cook DJ, Griffith LE, Walter SD, Guyatt GH, Meade MO, Heyland DK, et al. The attributable mortality and length of intensive care unit stay of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2001;5:368–75. doi: 10.1186/cc1071.
    1. Eddleston JM, Pearson RC, Holland J, Tooth JA, Vohra A, Doran BH. Prospective endoscopic study of stress erosions and ulcers in critically ill adult patients treated with either sucralfate or placebo. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:1949–54. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199422120-00010.
    1. Martin LF. Stress ulcers are common after aortic surgery. Endoscopic evaluation of prophylactic therapy. Am Surg. 1994;60:169–74.
    1. Fennerty MB. Pathophysiology of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the critically ill patient: rationale for the therapeutic benefits of acid suppression. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:351–5. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200206001-00002.
    1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Borthwick M, Bendel S, et al. Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:833–45. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3725-1.
    1. Alhazzani W, Alshahrani M, Moayyedi P, Jaeschke R. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: review of the evidence. Pol Arch Med Wewnętrznej. 2012;122:107–14.
    1. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:165–228. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8.
    1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: IHI ventilator bundle: peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis. . Accessed 14 Apr 2016.
    1. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on 14 November 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:347–79.
    1. The Joint Commission. . Accessed 10 Aug 2014.
    1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Borthwick M, Bendel S, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59:576–85. doi: 10.1111/aas.12508.
    1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Hylander MM. Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:11–22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-3125-3.
    1. Wilhelm SM, Rjater RG, Kale-Pradhan PB. Perils and pitfalls of long-term effects of proton pump inhibitors. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2013;6:443–51. doi: 10.1586/17512433.2013.811206.
    1. Apte NM, Karnad DR, Medhekar TP, Tilve GH, Morye S, Bhave GG. Gastric colonization and pneumonia in intubated critically ill patients receiving stress ulcer prophylaxis: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 1992;20:590–3. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199205000-00008.
    1. Howell M, Novack V, Grgurich P, Souillard D, Lena N, Pencina M, et al. Iatrogenic gastric acid suppression and the risk of nosocomial clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:784–90. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.89.
    1. Wolfe M. Overview and comparison of the proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of acid-related disorders. UpToDate. 2015.
    1. Bavishi C, Dupont HL. Systematic review: the use of proton pump inhibitors and increased susceptibility to enteric infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:1269–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04874.x.
    1. Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:2222–8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f17adf.
    1. Maclaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:564–74. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.14673.
    1. Leonard J, Marshall JK, Moayyedi P. Systematic review of the risk of enteric infection in patients taking acid suppression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2047–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01275.x.
    1. Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, Singh S, Cavallazzi R, Loke YK. Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1011–9. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.108.
    1. van Boxel OS, van Oijen MG, Hagenaars MP, Smout AJ, Siersema PD. Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal outcomes in clopidogrel users on proton pump inhibitors: results of a large Dutch cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2430–6. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.334.
    1. Charlot M, Ahlehoff O, Norgaard ML, Jørgensen CH, Sørensen R, Abildstrøm SZ, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of clopidogrel use: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:378–86. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-6-201009210-00005.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
    1. Copenhagen Trial unit (CTU). .
    1. Nomeco CTSM. .
    1. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:147–77. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.
    1. WMA Declaration of Helsinki − Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2013. . Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
    1. SUP-ICU. .
    1. Final report on transparency and registration in clinical research in the Nordic countries published 9 April 2015 − Nordic Trial Alliance (NTA). . Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
    1. Centre for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC). .
    1. Basso N, Bagarani M, Materia A, Fiorani S, Lunardi P, Speranza V. Cimetidine and antacid prophylaxis of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high risk patients. Controlled, randomized trial. Am J Surg. 1981;141:339–41. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(81)90191-4.
    1. Burgess P, Larson GM, Davidson P, Brown J, Metz CA. Effect of ranitidine on intragastric pH and stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with severe head injury. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:645–50. doi: 10.1007/BF02064385.
    1. Friedman CJ, Oblinger MJ, Suratt PM, Bowers J, Goldberg SK, Sperling MH, et al. Prophylaxis of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 1982;10:316–9.
    1. Halloran LG, Zfass AM, Gayle WE, Wheeler CB, Miller JD. Prevention of acute gastrointestinal complications after severe head injury: a controlled trial of cimetidine prophylaxis. Am J Surg. 1980;139:44–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(80)90228-7.
    1. Karlstadt RG, Iberti TJ, Silverstein J, Lindenberg L, Rright-Asare P, Rockhold F, et al. Comparison of cimetidine and placebo for the prophylaxis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to stress-related gastric mucosal damage in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 1990;5:26–32. doi: 10.1177/088506669000500106.
    1. MacDougall BR, Bailey RJ, Williams R. H2-receptor antagonists and antacids in the prevention of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage in fulminant hepatic failure. Two controlled trials. Lancet. 1977;1:617–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)92055-4.
    1. Zinner MJ, Zuidema GD, Smith P, Mignosa M. The prevention of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in patients in an intensive care unit. Surg Gynecol Obs. 1981;153:214–20.
    1. Brett S. Science review: the use of proton pump inhibitors for gastric acid suppression in critical illness. Crit Care. 2005;9:45–50. doi: 10.1186/cc2980.
    1. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ. Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:693–705. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182758734.
    1. Savović J, Jones H, Altman D, Harris R, Jűni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–82.
    1. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Aneman A, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:124–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204242.
    1. Haase N, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Perner A. Bleeding and risk of death with hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis: post hoc analyses of a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:2126–34. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-3111-9.
    1. TSA. Trial sequential analysis (TSA). The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (2011) Software and manual. Available at . Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013.
    1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Moller MH. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: is it indicated? A topical systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57:835–47. doi: 10.1111/aas.12099.
    1. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA (2008) CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 36:309–32.
    1. Lan K, Demets D. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983;70:659–63. doi: 10.2307/2336502.
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation; guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials; availability – FDA. Notice. Fed Regist. 1998; 63:49583–98.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera