Prophylaxis for Stress-related Gastric Hemorrhage in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

A Randomized, Controlled, Single-Blind Study

  1. Tamir Ben-Menachem, MD;
  2. Ronald Fogel, MD;
  3. Rakesh V. Patel, PharmD;
  4. Mark Touchette, PharmD;
  5. Barbara J. Zarowitz, PharmDMD;
  6. Neven Hadzijahic, MD;
  7. George Divine, PhD;
  8. Joel Verter, PhD; and
  9. Robert S. Bresalier, MD
  1. Henry Ford Hospital and Health Sciences Center, Detroit, Michigan. Requests for Reprints: Drs. Ronald Fogel and Robert Bresalier, Division of Gastroenterology, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48202. Grant Support: In part from the Henry Ford Hospital Research and Education Funds to Dr. Ben-Menachem and to Dr. Fogel. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Drs. Marc Dunn and Surinder Batra for their participation on the Project Monitoring Committee; Patti Poleno, RN, BSN, Runette Hall, and Linda Leblanc for help in data collection; and the nurses of the medical ICUs for their care of the patients.

    Abstract

    Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of cimetidine and sucralfate prophylaxis for stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit.

    Setting: Medical intensive care unit of a nonprofit, university-affiliated teaching hospital.

    Patients: 300 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit during a 10-month period.

    Design: Randomized, controlled, single-blind clinical trial.

    Intervention: Patients were assigned to receive no prophylaxis (control), 1 g sucralfate given orally every 6 hours, or continuous intravenous cimetidine titrated to maintain gastric pH at 4.0. Intervention was maintained until the occurrence of clinically severe hemorrhage, onset of drug-related complications, death, or discharge from the medical intensive care unit.

    Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the incidence of clinically severe hemorrhage from endoscopically verified stress-related gastritis. Other outcome measures were transfusion requirements, duration of medical intensive care unit stay, incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, adverse drug reactions, and death.

    Results: 100 patients were randomly assigned to each treatment. The three groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics, intensive care unit admission diagnoses, and APACHE II scores. Stress-related hemorrhage was seen in 6% of control participants and in 5% of those receiving sucralfate or cimetidine (relative risk compared with control, 0.83 for each group; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.64; P = 0.75). No statistically significant differences were found for transfusion requirements, duration of medical intensive care unit stay, and mortality rates among the three groups. Nosocomial pneumonia was diagnosed in 6%, 12%, and 13% of controls, sucralfate recipients, and cimetidine recipients, respectively (sucralfate: relative risk, 2.0 [CI, 0.79 to 5.01], P = 0.14; cimetidine: relative risk, 2.2 [CI, 0.88 to 5.33], P = 0.09). Prophylaxis caused no definite adverse drug reactions.

    Conclusions: The observed effects of cimetidine and sucralfate on the incidence and severity of hemorrhage from stress-related gastritis were not significant when compared with no treatment. Routine prophylaxis with these agents for patients entering the medical intensive care unit does not seem warranted.

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents