We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically III Patients Resolving Discordant Meta-analyses

Deborah J. Cook, MD, MSc; Brenda K. Reeve, MD; Gordon H. Guyatt, MD, MSc; Daren K. Heyland, MD, MSc; Lauren E. Griffith, MSc; Lisa Buckingham; Michael Tryba, MD
JAMA. 1996;275(4):308-314. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530280060038.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Purpose.  —To resolve discrepancies in previous systematic overviews and provide estimates of the effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients.

Data Identification.  —Computerized search of published and unpublished research, bibliographies, pharmaceutical and personal files, and conference abstract reports.

Study Selection.  —Independent review of 269 articles identified 63 relevant randomized trials for inclusion.

Data Abstraction.  —We made independent, duplicate assessment of the methodologic quality, population, intervention, and outcomes of each trial.

Results.  —The source of discrepancies between prior meta-analyses included incomplete identification of relevant studies, differential inclusion of non—English language and nonrandomized trials, different definitions of bleeding, provision of additional information through direct correspondence with authors, and different statistical methods. The current overview demonstrates that prophylaxis with histamine2-receptor antagonists decreases the incidence of overt gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79) and clinically important bleeding (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88). There is a trend toward decreased overt bleeding when antacids are compared with no therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.17). Histamine2-receptor antagonists and antacids are associated with a trend toward lower clinically important bleeding rates than sucralfate is. There is a trend toward an increased risk of pneumonia associated with histamine2-receptor antagonists as compared with no prophylaxis (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.78 to 2.00). Sucralfate is associated with a lower incidence of nosocomial pneumonia when compared with antacids (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15) and histamine2-receptor antagonists (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01). Sucralfate is also associated with a reduced mortality rate (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97) relative to antacids and to histamine2-receptor antagonists (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.09).

Conclusions.  —Our results emphasize the need for registries to include all randomized trials and demonstrate the importance of explicit methodology for systematic reviews. There is strong evidence of reduced clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding with histamine2-receptor antagonists. Sucralfate may be as effective in reducing bleeding as gastric pH—altering drugs and is associated with lower rates of pneumonia and mortality. However, the data are insufficient to determine the net effect of sucralfate compared with no prophylaxis.(JAMA. 1996;275:308-314)


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.