Log in | Register

Pantoprazole prophylaxis in ICU patients with high severity of disease: a post hoc analysis of the placebo-controlled SUP-ICU trial

Søren Marker| Anders Perner| Jørn Wetterslev| Mette Krag| Theis Lange| Matt P. Wise| Mark Borthwick| Stepani Bendel| Frederik Keus| Anne Berit Guttormsen| Joerg C. Schefold| Morten Hylander Møller
Original
Online First ™ - March , 2019

Pages 1 - 10

Abstract

Purpose

In the subgroup of patients with Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II > 53 in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, there was interaction (P = 0.049) suggesting increased mortality in patients allocated to pantoprazole as compared with placebo. We aimed to explore this further.

Methods

The SUP-ICU trial allocated acutely admitted adults at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding to pantoprazole vs placebo. In this post hoc study, we repeated all the preplanned analyses of SUP-ICU in patients with baseline SAPS II > 53.

Results

A total of 1140 patients had a complete SAPS II > 53 and were included. At 90 days, 272/579 patients (47%) assigned to pantoprazole had died, as compared with 229/558 patients (41%) assigned to placebo [relative risk 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.29]. This was supported by sensitivity analyses adjusted for risk factors and those in the per-protocol population. When accounting for patients with incomplete SAPS II in two additional analyses, the relative risk was 1.08; 95% CI 0.96–1.22 and 1.10; 95% CI 0.97–1.25. This was also observed for the secondary outcome days alive without life support. There were no differences between the intervention groups in the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis of patients with high disease severity included in the SUP-ICU trial, we observed higher 90-day mortality and fewer days alive without life support with pantoprazole vs placebo. Some of this may have been explained by missing SAPS II data, but further research is needed to draw firm conclusions.

ClinicalTrials.gov

ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02467621.

Keywords

References

  1. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2016) Stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in critically ill patients (SUP-ICU trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17:205
    • View reference on publisher's website
  2. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2015) Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 41:833–845
  3. Cook DJ, Griffith LE, Walter SD et al (2001) The attributable mortality and length of intensive care unit stay of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care 5:368–375
    • View reference on publisher's website
  4. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W et al (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 43:304–377
  5. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2015) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 59:576–585
    • View reference on publisher's website
  6. Le Gall J-R, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American Multicenter Study. JAMA 270:2957
    • View reference on publisher's website
  7. Krag M, Marker S, Perner A et al (2018) Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. N Engl J Med 379:2199–2208
    • View reference on publisher's website
  8. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J et al (2017) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial: detailed statistical analysis plan. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 61:859–868
    • View reference on publisher's website
  9. von Elm E, Egger M, Altman DG et al (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335:806–808
    • View reference on publisher's website
  10. Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J et al (2014) Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N Engl J Med 371:1381–1391
    • View reference on publisher's website
  11. Jakobsen JC, Tamborrino M, Winkel P et al (2015) Count data analysis in randomised clinical trials. J Biomet Biostat 6:227
  12. Macias WL, Nelson DR, Williams M et al (2005) Lack of evidence for qualitative treatment by disease severity interactions in clinical studies of severe sepsis. Crit Care 9:R607–R622
    • View reference on publisher's website
  13. Alhazzani W, Guyatt G, Alshahrani M et al (2017) Withholding pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a pilot randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 45:1121–1129
    • View reference on publisher's website
  14. Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 44:1–11
  15. Cook D, Guyatt G (2018) Prophylaxis against upper gastrointestinal bleeding in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 378:2506–2516
    • View reference on publisher's website
  16. Selvanderan SP, Summers MJ, Finnis ME et al (2016) Pantoprazole or placebo for stress ulcer prophylaxis (POP-UP). Crit Care Med 44:1842–1850
    • View reference on publisher's website
  17. MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR (2014) Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med 174:564–574
    • View reference on publisher's website
  18. Charlot M, Ahlehoff O, Norgaard ML et al (2010) Proton-pump inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of clopidogrel use: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med 153:378–386
    • View reference on publisher's website
  19. Sehested TSG, Gerds TA, Fosbøl EL et al (2018) Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors, dose-response relationship, and associated risk of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. J Intern Med 283:268–281
    • View reference on publisher's website
  20. Sedgwick P (2014) Randomised controlled trials: subgroup analyses. BMJ 349:g7513
    • View reference on publisher's website
  21. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH et al (2007) Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 357:2189–2194
    • View reference on publisher's website
  22. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1992) A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 116:78–84
    • View reference on publisher's website
  23. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH (2010) Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 340:850–854
    • View reference on publisher's website
  24. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928
    • View reference on publisher's website
  25. Granholm A, Møller MH, Krag M et al (2016) Predictive performance of the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II and the initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in acutely ill intensive care patients: post-hoc analyses of the SUP-ICU inception cohort study. PLoS One 11:e0168948
    • View reference on publisher's website
  26. Barkun A, Bardou M (2018) Proton-pump inhibitor prophylaxis in the ICU—benefits worth the risks? N Engl J Med 379:2263–2264
    • View reference on publisher's website
  27. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement