Naseem Eisa, MD

In Reply: We welcome the comments from Dr. Chongnarungsin on our article and the opportunity to further discuss our opinions.

In our paper, we discussed current recommendations for prophylaxis of stress ulcer-related bleeding in hospitalized patients and advocated against the blind administration of drugs without risk stratification.

The landmark trial that provides the most-cited definitions and the risk factors for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients was published in 1994 by Cook et al.¹ In their multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 patients, the authors reported that prolonged mechanical ventilation is an important risk factor for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding.

Another major prospective cohort study observed an incidence rate of clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding of 3.5%.²

Dr. Chongnarungsin cites another prospective cohort study of 183 patients from the same era,³ wherein the authors defined stress ulcer-related bleeding as bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, found on endoscopy or on postmortem evaluation. This was in contrast to the 1994 study of Cook et al,¹ who had a more rigorous and comprehensive definition for overt and clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding, applied by up to three independent adjudicators not involved in the patients’ care. Their definition not only entailed a more accurate transfusion-dependent bleeding criterion, but also included hemodynamic and laboratory criteria. As such, the “very low rate” of stress ulcer-related bleeding reported by Zandstra et al³ should be critically appraised. Of note, the authors in that study did not report the rates of patients who received early enteral feeding, and their patients received cefotaxime for digestive tract decontamination, an important confounder to the interpretation of the study results.

Indeed, the remarkable variation in estimates of the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding is probably related to the lack of a uniform definition. Even when rates of endoscopic and occult bleeding are set aside, agreement is lacking as to which category of bleeding is clinically significant.

Dr. Chongnarungsin also cites the study by Ellison et al⁴ of a cohort of 874 patients who had no previous gastrointestinal bleeding or peptic ulcer disease and who were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin to prevent infections associated with an intensive care unit. In a secondary objective, the authors did not identify coagulopathy or prolonged mechanical ventilation as a principal risk factor for bleeding. The authors ascribed this discrepancy with previously published literature to their unique study population, which consisted predominantly of elderly men and rarely included trauma patients. In light of these unique peculiarities of their population, the lack of an association between prolonged mechanical ventilation and stress ulcer-related bleeding cannot be determined. Moreover, that study showed that prolonged nasogastric tube insertion was one of the risk factors for increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and not the risk factor for development of stress ulcer as stated by Dr. Chongnarungsin.

The decrease in the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients over the years could be attributed to an era effect, from advances in critical care medicine and prophylactic methods.⁵ We agree with Dr. Chongnarungsin that the increased introduction of early enteral feeding may have also contributed to the reduced incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding.⁶ However, we think the conclusion that “mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours does not seem to increase the risk of stress ulcer” is overelaborated, and we believe that strong evidence demonstrates this association.^1,2

Alternatively, we recognize the lack of mortality-benefit evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis. This notwithstanding, according to recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is listed as a 1B recommendation (strong recommendation) for severely septic patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. In addition, the updated 2014 guidelines of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists⁷ continue to recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis in the context of mechanical ventilation, with H2 receptor antagonists being the preferred first-line agents.⁸

It is important to acknowledge that these recommendations were endorsed despite the lack of obvious mortality benefit, and it is our opinion that large randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate the risks and mortality benefit of these prophylaxis methods.

In Reply: We welcome the comments from Dr. Chongnarungsin on our article and the opportunity to further discuss our opinions.

In our paper, we discussed current recommendations for prophylaxis of stress ulcer-related bleeding in hospitalized patients and advocated against the blind administration of drugs without risk stratification.

The landmark trial that provides the most-cited definitions and the risk factors for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients was published in 1994 by Cook et al.¹ In their multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 patients, the authors reported that prolonged mechanical ventilation is an important risk factor for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding.

Another major prospective cohort study observed an incidence rate of clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding of 3.5%.²

Dr. Chongnarungsin cites another prospective cohort study of 183 patients from the same era,³ wherein the authors defined stress ulcer-related bleeding as bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, found on endoscopy or on postmortem evaluation. This was in contrast to the 1994 study of Cook et al,¹ who had a more rigorous and comprehensive definition for overt and clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding, applied by up to three independent adjudicators not involved in the patients’ care. Their definition not only entailed a more accurate transfusion-dependent bleeding criterion, but also included hemodynamic and laboratory criteria. As such, the “very low rate” of stress ulcer-related bleeding reported by Zandstra et al³ should be critically appraised. Of note, the authors in that study did not report the rates of patients who received early enteral feeding, and their patients received cefotaxime for digestive tract decontamination, an important confounder to the interpretation of the study results.

Indeed, the remarkable variation in estimates of the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding is probably related to the lack of a uniform definition. Even when rates of endoscopic and occult bleeding are set aside, agreement is lacking as to which category of bleeding is clinically significant.

Dr. Chongnarungsin also cites the study by Ellison et al⁴ of a cohort of 874 patients who had no previous gastrointestinal bleeding or peptic ulcer disease and who were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin to prevent infections associated with an intensive care unit. In a secondary objective, the authors did not identify coagulopathy or prolonged mechanical ventilation as a principal risk factor for bleeding. The authors ascribed this discrepancy with previously published literature to their unique study population, which consisted predominantly of elderly men and rarely included trauma patients. In light of these unique peculiarities of their population, the lack of an association between prolonged mechanical ventilation and stress ulcer-related bleeding cannot be determined. Moreover, that study showed that prolonged nasogastric tube insertion was one of the risk factors for increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and not the risk factor for development of stress ulcer as stated by Dr. Chongnarungsin.

The decrease in the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients over the years could be attributed to an era effect, from advances in critical care medicine and prophylactic methods.⁵ We agree with Dr. Chongnarungsin that the increased introduction of early enteral feeding may have also contributed to the reduced incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding.⁶ However, we think the conclusion that “mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours does not seem to increase the risk of stress ulcer” is overelaborated, and we believe that strong evidence demonstrates this association.^1,2

Alternatively, we recognize the lack of mortality-benefit evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis. This notwithstanding, according to recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is listed as a 1B recommendation (strong recommendation) for severely septic patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. In addition, the updated 2014 guidelines of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists⁷ continue to recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis in the context of mechanical ventilation, with H2 receptor antagonists being the preferred first-line agents.⁸

It is important to acknowledge that these recommendations were endorsed despite the lack of obvious mortality benefit, and it is our opinion that large randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate the risks and mortality benefit of these prophylaxis methods.

In Reply: We welcome the comments from Dr. Chongnarungsin on our article and the opportunity to further discuss our opinions.

In our paper, we discussed current recommendations for prophylaxis of stress ulcer-related bleeding in hospitalized patients and advocated against the blind administration of drugs without risk stratification.

The landmark trial that provides the most-cited definitions and the risk factors for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients was published in 1994 by Cook et al.¹ In their multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 patients, the authors reported that prolonged mechanical ventilation is an important risk factor for clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding.

Another major prospective cohort study observed an incidence rate of clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding of 3.5%.²

Dr. Chongnarungsin cites another prospective cohort study of 183 patients from the same era,³ wherein the authors defined stress ulcer-related bleeding as bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, found on endoscopy or on postmortem evaluation. This was in contrast to the 1994 study of Cook et al,¹ who had a more rigorous and comprehensive definition for overt and clinically significant stress ulcer-related bleeding, applied by up to three independent adjudicators not involved in the patients’ care. Their definition not only entailed a more accurate transfusion-dependent bleeding criterion, but also included hemodynamic and laboratory criteria. As such, the “very low rate” of stress ulcer-related bleeding reported by Zandstra et al³ should be critically appraised. Of note, the authors in that study did not report the rates of patients who received early enteral feeding, and their patients received cefotaxime for digestive tract decontamination, an important confounder to the interpretation of the study results.

Indeed, the remarkable variation in estimates of the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding is probably related to the lack of a uniform definition. Even when rates of endoscopic and occult bleeding are set aside, agreement is lacking as to which category of bleeding is clinically significant.

Dr. Chongnarungsin also cites the study by Ellison et al⁴ of a cohort of 874 patients who had no previous gastrointestinal bleeding or peptic ulcer disease and who were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin to prevent infections associated with an intensive care unit. In a secondary objective, the authors did not identify coagulopathy or prolonged mechanical ventilation as a principal risk factor for bleeding. The authors ascribed this discrepancy with previously published literature to their unique study population, which consisted predominantly of elderly men and rarely included trauma patients. In light of these unique peculiarities of their population, the lack of an association between prolonged mechanical ventilation and stress ulcer-related bleeding cannot be determined. Moreover, that study showed that prolonged nasogastric tube insertion was one of the risk factors for increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and not the risk factor for development of stress ulcer as stated by Dr. Chongnarungsin.

The decrease in the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding in critically ill patients over the years could be attributed to an era effect, from advances in critical care medicine and prophylactic methods.⁵ We agree with Dr. Chongnarungsin that the increased introduction of early enteral feeding may have also contributed to the reduced incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding.⁶ However, we think the conclusion that “mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours does not seem to increase the risk of stress ulcer” is overelaborated, and we believe that strong evidence demonstrates this association.^1,2

Alternatively, we recognize the lack of mortality-benefit evidence for stress ulcer prophylaxis. This notwithstanding, according to recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is listed as a 1B recommendation (strong recommendation) for severely septic patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. In addition, the updated 2014 guidelines of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists⁷ continue to recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis in the context of mechanical ventilation, with H2 receptor antagonists being the preferred first-line agents.⁸

It is important to acknowledge that these recommendations were endorsed despite the lack of obvious mortality benefit, and it is our opinion that large randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate the risks and mortality benefit of these prophylaxis methods.

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.¹ In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.² In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.³

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients² reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 10⁹/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.⁴ In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.³

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.^3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).²

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.⁷ But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.⁸ Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.⁹

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.^10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.¹² Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

• Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile¹²
• Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.¹²
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,¹³ although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.¹⁴

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.¹⁵

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.¹²

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi¹⁶ reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,^8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.¹⁷ This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.^3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.¹⁷

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.¹⁸

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.¹ In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.² In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.³

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients² reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 10⁹/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.⁴ In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.³

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.^3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).²

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.⁷ But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.⁸ Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.⁹

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.^10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.¹² Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

• Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile¹²
• Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.¹²
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,¹³ although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.¹⁴

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.¹⁵

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.¹²

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi¹⁶ reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,^8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.¹⁷ This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.^3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.¹⁷

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.¹⁸

No. Based on current evidence and guidelines, routine acid-suppressive therapy to prevent stress ulcers has no benefit in hospitalized patients outside the critical-care setting. Only critically ill patients who meet specific criteria, as described in the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, should receive acid-suppressive therapy.

Unfortunately, routine stress ulcer prophylaxis is common in US hospitals, unnecessarily putting patients at risk of complications and adding costs.

STRESS ULCER AND CRITICAL ILLNESS

Stress ulcers—ulcerations of the upper part of the gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa in the setting of acute disease—usually involve the fundus and body of the stomach. The stomach is lined with a glycoprotein mucous layer rich in bicarbonates, forming a physiologic barrier to protect the gastric wall from acid insult by neutralizing hydrogen ions. Disruption of this protective layer can occur in critically ill patients (eg, those with shock or sepsis) through overproduction of uremic toxins, increased reflux of bile salts, compromised blood flow, and increased stomach acidity through gastrin stimulation of parietal cells.

More than 75% of patients with major burns or cranial trauma develop endoscopic mucosal abnormalities within 72 hours of injury.¹ In critically ill patients, the risk of ulcer-related overt bleeding is estimated to be 5% to 25%. Furthermore, 1% to 5% of stress ulcers can be deep enough to erode into the submucosa, causing clinically significant GI bleeding, defined as bleeding complicated by hemodynamic compromise or a drop in hemoglobin that requires a blood transfusion.² In contrast, in inpatients who are not critically ill, the risk of overt bleeding from stress ulcers is less than 1%.³

ADDRESSING RISK

A multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,252 intensive care patients² reported two main risk factors for significant bleeding caused by stress ulcers: mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy, defined as a platelet count below 50 × 10⁹/L, an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, or a partial thromboplastin time more than twice the control value.⁴ In hemodynamically stable patients receiving anticoagulation in a general medical or surgical ward, the risk of GI bleeding was low, and acid suppression failed to lower the rate of stress ulcer occurrence.³

Other risk factors include severe sepsis, shock, liver failure, kidney failure, burns over 35% of the total body surface, organ transplantation, cranial trauma, spinal cord trauma, history of peptic ulcer disease, and history of upper GI bleeding.^3,5,6 Steroid therapy is not considered a risk factor for stress ulcers unless it is used in the presence of another risk factor such as use of aspirin or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).²

INDICATIONS FOR PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is indicated in specific conditions—ie, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic NSAID therapy, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome—and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.⁷ But in the United States, stress ulcer prophylaxis is overused in general-care floors despite the lack of supporting evidence.

The American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines recommend it in the intensive care unit for patients with any of the following: coagulopathy, prolonged mechanical ventilation (more than 48 hours), GI ulcer or bleeding within the past year, sepsis, a stay longer than 1 week in the intensive care unit, occult GI bleeding for 6 or more days, and steroid therapy with more than 250 mg of hydrocortisone daily.⁸ Hemodynamically stable patients admitted to general-care floors should not receive stress ulcer prophylaxis, as it only negligibly decreases the rate of GI bleeding, from 0.33% to 0.22%.⁹

WHY ROUTINE ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT FOR ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is often considered benign, its lack of proven benefit, additional cost, and risk of adverse effects, including interactions with foods and other drugs, preclude using it routinely for all hospitalized patients.^10,11 Chronic use of PPIs has been associated with complications, as discussed below.

Infection

Acid suppression may impair the destruction of ingested microorganisms, resulting in overgrowth of bacteria.¹² Overuse of PPIs may increase the risk of several infections:

• Diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile¹²
• Community-acquired pneumonia, from increased microaspiration of overgrown microorganisms into the lung.¹²
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis,¹³ although the mechanism is not clear. (Small-bowel bacterial overgrowth is the hypothesized cause.)

Bone fracture

PPIs lower gastric acidity, and this can inhibit intestinal calcium absorption. Furthermore, PPIs may directly inhibit bone resorption by osteoclasts.¹⁴

Reduction in clopidogrel efficacy

PPIs may reduce the efficacy of clopidogrel as a result of competitive inhibition of cytochrome CYP2C19, which is necessary to metabolize clopidogrel to its active forms. Therefore, concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole, esomeprazole, or other CYP2C19 inhibitors is not recommended.¹⁵

Nutritional deficiencies

The overgrown microorganisms consume cobalamin in the stomach, resulting in vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Acid-suppressive therapy can also reduce the absorption of magnesium and iron.¹²

Unnecessary cost

Heidelbaugh and Inadomi¹⁶ reviewed the non-evidence-based use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to a large university hospital and estimated that it entailed a cost to the hospital of $111,791 over the course of a year.

WHICH ULCER PROPHYLAXIS SHOULD BE USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Studies have shown histamine-2 blockers to be superior to antacids and sucralfate in preventing stress ulcer and GI bleeding,^8,15 but no study has compared PPIs with sucralfate and antacids.

When indicated, an oral PPI is preferred over an oral histamine-2 blocker for GI prophylaxis.¹⁷ This practice is considered cost-effective and is associated with lower rates of stress ulcer and GI bleeding. In intubated patients, however, an intravenous histamine-2 blocker is preferable to an intravenous PPI.^3,8,11 Interestingly, no difference was reported between PPIs and histamine-2 blockers in terms of mortality rate or reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia.¹⁷

OUR RECOMMENDATION

Only critically ill patients who meet the specific criteria described here should receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. More effort is needed to educate residents, medical staff, and pharmacists about current guidelines. Computerized ordering templates and reminders to discontinue prophylaxis at discharge or step-down may decrease overall use, reduce costs, and limit potential side effects.¹⁸