Search

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is commonly administered to critically ill patients for the prevention of clinically important stress-related mucosal bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract. Despite widespread incorporation of stress ulcer prophylaxis into practice around the world, questions are emerging about its indications and impact. This clinically focused article will review current controversies related to stress ulcer prophylaxis for critically ill adult patients, including bleeding frequency, risk factors, comparative efficacy, adverse effect profile, and overall cost-effectiveness of the available stress ulcer prophylaxis regimens.A MEDLINE search was conducted from inception through August 2015.Selected publications describing stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult patients were retrieved (original research, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines); their bibliographies were also reviewed to identify additional pertinent publications.Data from relevant publications were abstracted and summarized.The existing evidence is organized to describe the patients most likely to benefit from stress ulcer prophylaxis, review the comparative efficacy of proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists, the adverse effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis, and overall cost-effectiveness.Many stress ulcer prophylaxis recommendations are based on older studies at risk of bias, which may not be applicable to modern practice. Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to patients considered to be at high risk for clinically important bleeding. When evaluating only the trials at low risk for bias, the evidence does not clearly support lower bleeding rates with proton pump inhibitors over histamine 2 receptor antagonists; however, proton pump inhibitors appear to be the dominant drug class used worldwide today. The current rate of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the relative adverse effects of acid suppression on infectious risk may drive not only the effectiveness, but also the cost-effectiveness of stress ulcer prophylaxis today. Research is currently underway to better address these issues.

Increases in the number, size, and occupancy rates of ICUs have not been accompanied by a commensurate growth in the number of critical care physicians leading to a workforce shortage. Due to concern that understaffing may exist, the Society of Critical Care Medicine created a taskforce to generate guidelines on maximum intensivists/patient ratios.A multidisciplinary taskforce conducted a review of published literature on intensivist staffing and related topics, a survey of pulmonary/Critical Care physicians, and held an expert roundtable conference.A statement was generated and revised by the taskforce members using an iterative consensus process and submitted for review to the leadership council of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. For the purposes of this statement, the taskforce limited its recommendations to ICUs that use a "closed" model where the intensivists control triage and patient care.The taskforce concluded that while advocating a specific maximum number of patients cared for is unrealistic, an approach that uses the following principles is essential: 1) proper staffing impacts patient care; 2) large caseloads should not preclude rounding in a timely fashion; 3) staffing decisions should factor surge capacity and nondirect patient care activities; 4) institutions should regularly reassess their staffing; 5) high staff turnover or decreases in quality-of-care indicators in an ICU may be markers of overload; 6) telemedicine, advanced practice professionals, or nonintensivist medical staff may be useful to alleviate overburdening the intensivist, but should be evaluated using rigorous methods; 7) in teaching institutions, feedback from faculty and trainees should be sought to understand the implications of potential understaffing on medical education; and 8) in academic medical ICUs, there is evidence that intensivist/patient ratios less favorable than 1:14 negatively impact education, staff well-being, and patient care.

Disorders of coagulation are common adverse drug events encountered in critically ill patients and present a serious concern for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Dosing strategies for medications used in the ICU are typically developed for use in noncritically ill patients and, therefore, do not account for the altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties encountered in the critically ill as well as the increased potential for drug-drug interactions, given the far greater number of medications ordered. This substantially increases the risk for coagulation-related adverse reactions, such as a bleeding or prothrombotic events. Although many medications used in the ICU have the potential to cause coagulation disorders, the exact incidence will vary based on the specific medication, dose, concomitant drug therapy, ICU setting, and patient-specific comorbidities. Clinicians must strongly consider these factors when evaluating the risk/benefit ratio for a particular therapy. This review surveys recent literature documenting the risk for adverse drug reactions specific to bleeding and/or clotting with commonly used medications in the ICU.

Sequential intravenous-to-oral antimicrobial therapy with highly bioavailable antiinfective agents such as the fluoroquinolones may improve patient safety and decrease cost of infection management. However, physiologic changes associated with critical illness may alter drug absorption, distribution, and clearance, and concomitant enteral feeding may decrease fluoroquinolone bioavailability. We evaluated the effect of critical illness and concomitant gastric tube feeding on gatifloxacin bioavailability.Prospective, randomized, single-dose, two-way crossover, pharmacokinetic study. SETTINGA tertiary, level-one, trauma center.Sixteen critically ill patients (baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoreor=16) tolerating enteral nutrition administered by gastric tube (NG) foror=12 hrs were randomized to receive gatifloxacin concurrently with continuous tube feeding or with interrupted tube feeds. Patients with renal insufficiency or those receiving concomitant fluoroquinolone therapy or postpyloric feeding were excluded. Patients received gatifloxacin 400 mg either by the intravenous or NG route followed by the alternative dosage form after a 72-hr washout period.Serial serum gatifloxacin concentrations (from 5 mins to 24 hrs) were analyzed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method. Bioavailability was determined as the ratio of NG/intravenous area under the concentration-time curve (AUC infinity ) measured by the trapezoidal method. Although there was no difference in the bioavailability between NG (AUC infinity : 38.0 [range 20.1 to 48.5] microg x h/mL) and intravenous (AUC infinity : 39.5 [range 24.1 to 63.1] microg x h/mL, p =.60) gatifloxacin (bioavailability: 98.5% [range 61.1% to 119.7%]), a wide variability was observed in three of eight patients (30% reduction in bioavailability). Concomitant gastric tube feeding did not affect gatifloxacin bioavailability (interrupted tube feeds: 98.5% [range 61.1% to 119.7%]; continuous tube feeding: 109.0% [range 86.2% to 142.1%]; p =.42). Neither a period nor differential carryover effect was observed.Although concomitant tube feeding did not affect gatifloxacin bioavailability, critical illness resulted in significant variability that may complicate the role of gatifloxacin in sequential intravenous-to-oral therapy. More research is needed to identify those patients in whom gatifloxacin bioavailability is reduced and for whom an empirical increase in gatifloxacin dose should be considered.