الفهرس 
Definition, Epidemiology, Prevalence, Risk factors of Stress UlcerationOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 116 |  |  |
| | | from | 116 | | |
Abstract
Background: Stress Ulceration was an important cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Early active treatment reduces the risk of clinically significant bleeding, stress ulcer prophylaxis therefore became a standard of care in all critically ill patients.
Objective: The overall aims of the Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patients is to determine the benefits and risks of stress ulcer prophylaxis stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in intensive care unit.
Materials and Methods: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. In the our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Medline via PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar from March 1977 till August 2019. The search retrieved 2289 unique records. We then obtained 237 final results for full-text screening. At last, 28 recorded studies were involved in our in the present study.
Results: 23 included studies reported the rates of clinically important GI bleeding. The overall effect estimates favored SUP over control for decreasing the hazards of clinically significant GI hemorrhage (P value <0.001, OR= 0.55, CI of 95% [0.35 – 0.86]). The overall effect estimates did not favor SUP over control for reducing the rate of death (P value =0.24, OR 1.21, 95% CI [0.87 – 1.69]). 23 studies reported the rates of pneumonia. The overall effect estimates showed that the SUP was not related to elevated hazards of nosocomial pneumonia over control (P value =0.15, OR =1.5, CI of 95% = [0.83 – 3.02]). The analysis showed that only Cimetidine 900 mg was effective in reducing the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding (OR 0.45 [0.24, 0.82], p =0.009). In contrary, none of the included PPIs (pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole), ranitidine, or sucralfate were effective in reducing the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding.
Conclusion: SUP is associated with lower risk of GI bleeding in critically ill patients; however, the current published literature shows significant inconsistency. Our analysis showed that, no significant difference between H2RA and PPI in term of incidence of clinically important GI bleeding, H2RAs (mainly cimetidine) more effective than other classes of SUP which significantly reduced the risk of overt GI hemorrhage, and none of the drug classes was effective in reducing the mortality rates.