Search

Background: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research., Methods: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities., Results: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied., Conclusion: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence., (© 2024 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Competing Interests: Dr. Szumita received funding from Trevena. Dr. Barletta received funding from Wolters Kluwer and Lexicomp. Dr. DePriest received funding from Baxter Channel One. Dr. Wischmeyer received funding from Abbott, Baxter, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH, Danone and Nutricia, Musclesound, Dutch State Mines, and Nestle. Dr. Argetsinger disclosed that she is an employee of the University of Michigan Health West and Bronson Methodist Hospital and Georgetown University School of Nursing. Dr. Dionne received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Granholm received funding from Sygeforsikringen “Danmark.” The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Rationale: Critically ill adults can develop stress-related mucosal damage from gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and reperfusion injury, predisposing them to clinically important stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB)., Objectives: The objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of UGIB in adults in the ICU., Design: A multiprofessional panel of 18 international experts from dietetics, critical care medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, and two methodologists developed evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guideline development including task force selection and voting., Methods: The panel members identified and formulated 13 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and then assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Good practice statements were included to provide additional guidance., Results: The panel generated nine conditional recommendations and made four good practice statements. Factors that likely increase the risk for clinically important stress-related UGIB in critically ill adults include coagulopathy, shock, and chronic liver disease. There is no firm evidence for mechanical ventilation alone being a risk factor. Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk. All critically ill adults with factors that likely increase the risk for stress-related UGIB should receive either proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, at low dosage regimens, to prevent UGIB. Prophylaxis should be discontinued when critical illness is no longer evident or the risk factor(s) is no longer present despite ongoing critical illness. Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU is necessary to prevent inappropriate prescribing., Conclusions: The guideline panel achieved consensus regarding the recommendations for the prevention of stress-related UGIB. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status., Competing Interests: Dr. Szumita received funding from Trevena. Dr. Barletta received funding from Wolters Kluwer and Lexicomp. Dr. DePriest received funding from Baxter Channel One. Dr. Wischmeyer received funding from Abbott, Baxter, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH, Danone and Nutricia, Musclesound, Dutch State Mines, and Nestle. Dr. Argetsinger disclosed that she is an employee of the University of Michigan Health West and Bronson Methodist Hospital and of Georgetown University School of Nursing. Dr. Dionne received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Granholm received funding from Sygeforsikringen “Danmark.” The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear., Methods: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding., Results: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes., Data Sources: A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023., Study Selection: Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo., Data Extraction: Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4)., Data Synthesis: Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome., Conclusions: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy and safety of proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients., Methods: We included randomized trials comparing proton-pump inhibitors versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill adults, performed meta-analyses, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. To explore the effect of proton-pump inhibitors on mortality based on disease severity, a subgroup analysis was conducted combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials and assessed credibility using the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses., Results: Twelve trials that enrolled 9533 patients were included. Proton-pump inhibitors were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 0.76]; high certainty evidence). Proton-pump inhibitors may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05]; low certainty). Within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of proton-pump inhibitors on mortality may differ based on disease severity. Subgroup results raise the possibility that proton-pump inhibitors may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98) and may increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.20]. Proton-pump inhibitors may have no effect on pneumonia and little or no effect on Clostridioides difficile infection (low certainty)., Conclusions: High certainty evidence supports the association of proton-pump inhibitors with decreased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Proton-pump inhibitors may have little or no effect on mortality, although a decrease in mortality in less severely ill patients and an increase in mortality in more severely ill patients remain possible. (PROSPERO number CRD42023461695.).

Rationale: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation., Objectives: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Panel Design: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline., Methods: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements., Results: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data., Conclusions: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers., Competing Interests: Supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Weber received funding from Pfizer, Merck, PDI, and Germitec. Dr. Pastores received funding from McGraw Hill; he disclosed that he is on the advisory board for AbbVie. Dr. Van Duin received funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group UM1AI104681), the NIH, and British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; he disclosed that he is a consultant for Actavis, Tetraphase, Sanofi-Pasteur, MedImmune, Astellas, Merck, Allergan, T2Biosystems, Roche, Achaogen, Neumedicine, Shionogi, Pfizer, Entasis, QPex, Wellspring, Karius, and Utility. Dr. Patel received funding from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, Hylomorph, BioFire, Shionogi, IDSA, NBME, UptoDate, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; she disclosed that she is a consultant for Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences, Qvella, and Netflix; she disclosed that she has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with a lower MAP in adults with shock results in differences in patient important outcomes., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2021., Study Selection: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify potentially eligible studies, then full text for final eligibility. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult patients with a diagnosis of shock requiring vasoactive medications. The higher MAP group was required to receive vasoactive medications to target a higher MAP as established by study authors, whereas the lower MAP group received vasoactive medications to target lower MAP., Data Extraction: In triplicate, reviewers independently extracted data using a prepiloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using the RevMan software Version 5.3., Data Synthesis: Six randomized controlled trials (n = 3,690) met eligibility criteria. Targeting a higher MAP (75-85 mm Hg) compared with lower MAP of 65 mm Hg resulted in no difference in mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; I2 = 0%; p = 0.12; moderate certainty. Targeting a higher MAP resulted in no difference in the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11; I2 = 24%; p = 0.57; moderate certainty); however, a subgroup analysis comparing patients with and without chronic hypertension demonstrated that a higher MAP may reduce the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02)., Conclusions: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in mortality when a higher MAP is targeted in critically ill adult patients with shock. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of mean arterial pressure on need for renal replacement therapy in this population., Competing Interests: Dr. Granholm’s institution received funding from Sygeforsikringen “danmark.” The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Purpose: To study the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of diarrhea during the stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: Prospective cohort of consecutive adults in the ICU for > 24 h during a 10-week period across 12 intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. The explored outcomes were: (1) incidence of diarrhea, (2) Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD); (3) ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality in patients with diarrhea. We fit generalized linear models to evaluate the predictors, management, morbidity and mortality associated with diarrhea., Results: Among 1109 patients aged 61.4 (17.5) [mean (standard deviation)] years, 981(88.5%) were medical and 645 (58.2%) were mechanically ventilated. The incidence was 73.8% (818 patients, 73.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.1-76.6) using the definition of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Incidence varied across definitions (Bristol 53.5%, 95% CI 50.4-56.7; Bliss 37.7%, 95% CI 34.9-40.4). Of 99 patients with diarrhea undergoing CDAD testing, 23 tested positive (2.2% incidence, 95% CI 1.5-3.4). Independent predictors included enteral nutrition (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31, p < 0.001), antibiotic days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, p < 0.001), and suppositories (RR 1.14 95% CI 1.06-1.22, p < 0.001). Opiates decreased diarrhea risk (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.86, p < 0.001). Diarrhea prompted management modifications (altered enteral nutrition or medications: RR 10.25, 95% CI 5.14-20.45, p < 0.001) or other consequences (fecal management device or CDAD testing: RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.4-11.17, p < 0.001). Diarrhea was associated with a longer time to discharge for ICU or hospital stay, but was not associated with hospital mortality., Conclusion: Diarrhea is common, has several predictors, and prompts changes in patient care, is associated with longer time to discharge but not mortality., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The cuff leak test (CLT) is used to assess laryngeal edema prior to extubation. There is limited evidence for its diagnostic accuracy and conflicting guidelines surrounding its use in critically ill patients who do not have risk factors for laryngeal edema. The primary study aim was to describe intensivists' beliefs, attitudes, and practice regarding the use of the CLT., Methods: A 13-item survey was developed, pilot-tested, and subjected to clinical sensibility testing. The survey was distributed electronically through MetaClinician®. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were performed to examine associations between participant demographics and survey responses., Results: 1184 practicing intensivists from 17 countries in North and South America, Europe, Oceania, and Asia participated. The majority (59%) of respondents reported rarely or never perform the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema, which correlated with 54% of respondents reporting they believed a failed CLT did not predict reintubation. Intensivists from the Middle East were 2.4 times more likely to request a CLT compared to those from North America. Intensivists with base training in medicine or emergency medicine were more likely to request a CLT prior to extubation compared to those with base training in anesthesiology., Conclusion: Use of the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema in the intensive care unit is highly variable. Practice appears to be influenced by country of practice and base specialty training., (© 2021 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Purpose: Fever is frequently encountered in ICU. It is unclear if targeted temperature control is beneficial in critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed infection. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to answer this question., Methods: We systematically reviewed major databases before January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antipyretic with placebo for temperature control in non-neurocritical ill adult patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Outcomes of interest were 28-day mortality, temperature level, hospital mortality, length of stay, shock reversal, and patient comfort., Result: 13 RCTs enrolling 1963 patients were included. No difference in 28-day mortality between antipyretic compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.79-1.35). Lower temperature levels were achieved in the antipyretic group (MD [mean difference] -0.41; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.16). Antipyretic use did not affect the risk of hospital mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.73-1.30), ICU length of stay (MD -0.07; 95% CI -0.70 to 0.56), or shock reversal (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.76-1.62)., Conclusion: Antipyretic therapy effectively reduces temperature in non-neurocritical ill patients but does not reduce mortality or impact other outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No other competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients., Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence., Results: Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis., Conclusion: This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Purpose: Alterations in bowel habits are common during critical illness, and bowel protocols are gaining acceptance. Our objective was to characterize bowel protocols in a cross-sectional analysis of ICUs., Materials and Methods: We engaged 44 adult ICUs and performed content analysis of bowel protocols, addressing initiation criteria, medications incorporated, medication escalation, discontinuation criteria, stool assessment methods, and protocol contraindications., Results: Bowel protocols operated in 33/44 ICUs (79.5%). The commonest medications were senna (81.0%) and bisacodyl (75.6%). Less common agents were sodium phosphate (45.9%), glycerin (43.2%), docusate sodium (43.2%), polyethylene glycol 3350 (37.8%), lactulose (29.7%), sodium citrate (16.2%), milk of magnesia (13.5%) and mineral oil (16.2%). Bowel protocols were activated by nurses (62.8%) based on initiation criteria [no bowel movement for 24-96 h (35.1%), opioid use (18.9%), "at risk for constipation" (13.5%), stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), feeding initiation (10.8%), and ICU admission (8.1%)]. Laxative escalation criteria included time from last bowel movement (59.4%), opioid use (18.9%) and no stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), while 15 (40.5%) included diarrhea as a discontinuation criterion., Conclusions: Bowel protocols have variable initiation, escalation, and discontinuation criteria incorporating different classes of laxatives, reflecting unclear evidence about optimal bowel management strategies in ICU., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors disclose any competing interests., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock., Methods: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty)., Conclusions: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Introduction: Diarrhoea is a frequent concern in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased length of ICU stay, skin breakdown and renal dysfunction. However, its prevalence, aetiology and prognosis in the critically ill have been poorly studied. The primary objectives of this study are to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of diarrhoea in critically ill adults. The secondary objectives are to estimate the incidence of Clostridium difficile- associated diarrhoea (CDAD) in ICU patients and to validate the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System characterising bowel movements in the ICU. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea . Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay., Methods and Analysis: This international prospective cohort study will enrol patients over 10 weeks in 12 ICUs in Canada, the USA, Poland and Saudi Arabia. We will include all patients 18 years of age and older who are admitted to the ICU for at least 24 hours and follow them daily until ICU discharge. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea based on the WHO definition, during the ICU stay. Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. We will use logistic regression to identify factors associated with diarrhoea (as defined using WHO criteria) and the kappa statistic to measure agreement on diarrhoea rates between the WHO definition and the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the research ethics board of all participating centres. The diarrhoea interventions, consequences and epidemiology in the intensive care unit (DICE-ICU) study will generate evidence about diarrhoea and its frequency, predisposing factors and consequences, to inform critical care practice and future research., Lay Summary: Diarrhoea is a frequent clinical problem for hospitalised patients including those who are critically ill in the ICU. Diarrhoea can cause complications such as skin damage, dehydration and kidney problems. It is not clear how common diarrhoea is in the ICU, the factors that cause it or the best way for clinicians to assess it. The DICE-ICU study is an international prospective observational study to examine the frequency, risk factors and outcomes of diarrhoea during critical illness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults., Methods: In the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, LILACS, PapersFirst, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Oct 25, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing liberal and conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults (aged ≥18 years). Studies limited to patients with chronic respiratory diseases or psychiatric disease, patients on extracorporeal life support, or patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or elective surgery were excluded. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We also extracted individual patient-level data from survival curves. The main outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, at 30 days, and at longest follow-up) and morbidity (disability at longest follow-up, risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, any hospital-acquired infection, and length of hospital stay) assessed by random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065697., Findings: 25 randomised controlled trials enrolled 16 037 patients with sepsis, critical illness, stroke, trauma, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest, and patients who had emergency surgery. Compared with a conservative oxygen strategy, a liberal oxygen strategy (median baseline saturation of peripheral oxygen [SpO 2 ] across trials, 96% [range 94-99%, IQR 96-98]) increased mortality in-hospital (relative risk [RR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·03-1·43, I 2 =0%, high quality), at 30 days (RR 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, I 2 =0%, high quality), and at longest follow-up (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·00-1·20, I 2 =0%, high quality). Morbidity outcomes were similar between groups. Findings were robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses., Interpretation: In acutely ill adults, high-quality evidence shows that liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes. Supplemental oxygen might become unfavourable above an SpO 2 range of 94-96%. These results support the conservative administration of oxygen therapy., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers., Results: Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies., Conclusions: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.

Purpose: To determine the impact of using sucralfate versus H2RAs for SUP on patient important outcomes., Materials and Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through June 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sucralfate to H2RAs for SUP in adult critically ill patients., Results: 21 RCTs enrolling 3121 patients met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between sucralfate compared to H2RAs in the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 1.19; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.79, 1.80; P=0.42; I 2 =0%; low quality evidence). However, there was a statistically significant lower risk of ICU acquired pneumonia with sucralfate compared to H2RAs (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98; P=0.03; I 2 =0%; moderate quality evidence). Sucralfate did not significantly affect the risk of death (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82, 1.10; P=0.51; I 2 =0%; high quality evidence), or duration of ICU stay in days (mean difference-0.39; 95% CI [-1.12, 0.34]; P=0.29; I 2 =0%; moderate quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis adjusted estimates were consistent with conventional estimates., Conclusion: Moderate quality evidence suggests that sucralfate reduced ICU acquired pneumonia compared to H2RAs in adult critically ill patients, with no significant impact on GI bleeding or death., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A decreased frequency of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a possible association of proton pump inhibitor use with Clostridium difficile and ventilator-associated pneumonia have raised concerns recently. The Reevaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions Pilot Trial determined the feasibility of undertaking a larger trial investigating the efficacy and safety of withholding proton pump inhibitors in critically ill patients., Methods: In 10 ICUs, we randomized adult ICU patients anticipated to be mechanically ventilated for greater than or equal to 48 hours to receive 40 mg of IV pantoprazole daily or placebo. We excluded patients who had acute or recent gastrointestinal bleed, used dual antiplatelet agents, had a medical condition requiring proton pump inhibitor treatment, or had already received more than one dose of acid suppression daily. Patients, families, clinicians, and research staff were blinded. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of similar trials., Main Results: Ninety-one patients (49 pantoprazole and 42 placebo) from 10 centers in Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Australia were enrolled. All feasibility goals were met: 1) recruitment rate was 2.6 patients per month; 2) consent rate was 77.8%; and 3) protocol adherence was 97.7%. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 6.1% of patients in the pantoprazole group and 4.8% in the placebo group (p = 1.0). Ventilator-associated pneumonia developed in 20.4% of patients in the pantoprazole group and 14.3% in the placebo group (p = 0.58). C. difficile was identified in 4.1% pantoprazole patients and in 2.4% placebo patients (p = 1.0). We meta-analyzed five trials (604 patients) of proton pump inhibitors versus placebo; there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, or mortality., Conclusions: Our results support the feasibility of a larger trial to evaluate the safety of withholding stress ulcer prophylaxis. Although the results are imprecise, there was no alarming increase in the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding; the effect of proton pump inhibitors on ventilator-associated pneumonia and C. difficile remain unclear.

Purpose: To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness., Methods: We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds., Results: We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion., Conclusions: We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of clonidine as a sedative in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation., Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry. We identified RCTs that compared clonidine to any non-clonidine regimen in critically ill patients, excluding neonates, requiring mechanical ventilation. The GRADE method was used to assess certainty of evidence., Results: We included eight RCTs (n = 642 patients). In seven of the trials clonidine was used for adjunctive rather than stand-alone sedation. There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) 0.05 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.65 to 0.75, I 2  = 86%, moderate certainty), ICU mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.90, I 2  = 0%, low certainty), or ICU length of stay (MD 0.04 days, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.53, I 2  = 16%, moderate certainty), with clonidine. There was a significant reduction in the total dose of narcotics (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.02, I 2  = 0%, moderate certainty) with clonidine use. Clonidine was associated with increased incidence of clinically significant hypotension (RR 3.11, 95% CI = 1.64 to 5.87, I 2  = 0%, moderate certainty)., Conclusions: Until further RCTs are performed, data remains insufficient to support the routine use of clonidine as a sedative in the mechanically ventilated population. Clonidine may act as a narcotic-sparing agent, albeit with an increased risk of clinically significant hypotension.

Background: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention., Results: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation., Conclusions: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Background: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults., Methods: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional., Results: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test., Conclusions: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Background: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST)., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, confidence in the evidence, certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, resources and costs associated with the intervention, impact on health disparities, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention., Results: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified following full panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation., Conclusions: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and CHEST., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An update of evidence-based guidelines concerning liberation from mechanical ventilation is needed as new evidence has become available. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have collaborated to provide recommendations to clinicians concerning liberation from the ventilator., Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarize all available evidence relevant to the guideline panel's questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the results were summarized in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations developed and approved by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation., Results: Recommendations for three population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions concerning ventilator liberation are presented in this document. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable (benefits) and undesirable (burdens, adverse effects, costs) consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions with respect to the selected questions. Conditional (weak) recommendations were made to use inspiratory pressure augmentation in the initial spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to use protocols to minimize sedation for patients ventilated for more than 24 h. A strong recommendation was made to use preventive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for high-risk patients ventilated for more than 24 h immediately after extubation to improve selected outcomes. The recommendations were limited by the quality of the available evidence., Conclusions: The guideline panel provided recommendations for inspiratory pressure augmentation during an initial SBT, protocols minimizing sedation, and preventative NIV, in relation to ventilator liberation., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality., Methods: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine's Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines' literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible., Results: We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68-2.55; I = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70-2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88)., Conclusions: Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.

Objective: Venous thromboembolism prevention during critical illness is a widely used quality metric. The objective of this systematic review was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical patients in the ICU., Data Sources: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Clinicaltrials.gov, and personal files through May 2012., Study Selection: Randomized trials in adult medical-surgical ICU patients comparing any heparin (unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) with each other or no anticoagulant prophylaxis, evaluating deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, or mortality., Data Extraction: Independently, in duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias., Data Synthesis: Seven trials involved 7,226 patients. Any heparin thromboprophylaxis compared with placebo reduced rates of deep vein thrombosis (pooled risk ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.41, 0.63]; p<0.0001; I=77%) and pulmonary embolism (risk ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28, 0.97]; p=0.04; I=0%) but not symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.59, 1.25]; p=0.43). Major bleeding (risk ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.56, 1.21]; p=0.32; I=50%) and mortality (risk ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78, 1.02]; p=0.09; I=0%) rates were similar. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin reduced rates of pulmonary embolism (risk ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.39, 1.00]; p=0.05; I=53%) and symptomatic pulmonary embolism (risk ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34, 0.97]; p=0.04) but not deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.74, 1.08]; p=0.26; I=0%), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (risk ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60, 1.25]; p=0.44; I=0%), major bleeding (risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75, 1.26]; p=0.83; I=0%), or mortality (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82, 1.04]; p=0.20; I=31%)., Conclusions: Trial evidence to date suggests that any type of heparin thromboprophylaxis decreases deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in medical-surgical critically ill patients, and low-molecular-weight heparin compared with bid unfractionated heparin decreases pulmonary embolism and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Major bleeding and mortality rates do not appear to be significantly influenced by heparin thromboprophylaxis in the ICU setting. Trial methodology, indirectness, and the heterogeneity and imprecision of some results temper inferences from this literature.

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of small bowel feeding compared with gastric feeding on the frequency of pneumonia and other patient-important outcomes in critically ill patients., Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov and personal files from 1980 to Dec 2012, and conferences and proceedings from 1993 to Dec 2012 for randomized trials of adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) comparing small bowel feeding to gastric feeding, and evaluating risk of pneumonia, mortality, length of ICU stay, achievement of caloric requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, and aspiration. Independently, in duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias., Results: We included 19 trials with 1394 patients. Small bowel feeding compared to gastric feeding was associated with reduced risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55, 0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53, 0.89; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%), with no difference in mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90, 1.29; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%), length of ICU stay (WMD -0.57; 95%CI -1.79, 0.66; P = 0.37; I2 = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -1.01; 95%CI -3.37, 1.35; P = 0.40; I2 = 17%), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.56, 1.42; P = 0.64; I2 = 0%), aspiration (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52, 1.65; P = 0.79; I2 = 0%), and vomiting (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54; P = 0.72; I2 = 57%). The overall quality of evidence was low for pneumonia outcome., Conclusions: Small bowel feeding, in comparison with gastric feeding, reduces the risk of pneumonia in critically ill patients without affecting mortality, length of ICU stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. These observations are limited by variation in pneumonia definition, imprecision, risk of bias and small sample size of individual trials.

Background: Critically ill patients may develop bleeding caused by stress ulceration. Acid suppression is commonly prescribed for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding. Whether proton pump inhibitors are more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists is unclear., Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, CINHAL, online trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, WHO ICTRP), conference proceedings databases, and reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled parallel group trials comparing proton pump inhibitors to histamine 2 receptor antagonists for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients, published before March 2012., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding; secondary outcomes were nosocomial pneumonia, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and Clostridium difficile infection. Trial authors were contacted for additional or clarifying information., Results: Fourteen trials enrolling a total of 1,720 patients were included. Proton pump inhibitors were more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists at reducing clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.68; p = 0.002; I = 0%) and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.59; p < 0.0001; I = 15%). There were no differences between proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists in the risk of nosocomial pneumonia (relative risk 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.52; p = 0.76; I = 0%), ICU mortality (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.24; p = 0.91; I = 0%), or ICU length of stay (mean difference -0.54 days; 95% confidence interval -2.20 to 1.13; p = 0.53; I = 39%). No trials reported on C. difficile infection., Conclusions: In critically ill patients, proton pump inhibitors seem to be more effective than histamine 2 receptor antagonists in preventing clinically important and overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The robustness of this conclusion is limited by the trial methodology, differences between lower and higher quality trials, sparse data, and possible publication bias. We observed no differences between drugs in the risk of pneumonia, death, or ICU length of stay.