Stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-critically ill patients: a prospective evaluation of current practice in a general surgery department.


Autoria(s): Bez C.; Perrottet N.; Zingg T.; Leung Ki E.L.; Demartines N.; Pannatier A.
Data(s)

2013

Resumo

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence regarding the benefit of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) outside a critical care setting. Overprescription of SUP is not devoid of risks. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for SUP in a general surgery department. METHOD: Data collection was performed prospectively during an 8-week period on patients hospitalized in a general surgery department (58 beds) by pharmacists. Patients with a PPI prescription for the treatment of ulcers, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, oesophagitis or epigastric pain were excluded. Patients admitted twice during the study period were not reincluded. The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines on SUP were used to assess the appropriateness of de novo PPI prescriptions. RESULTS: Among 255 patients in the study, 138 (54%) received a prophylaxis with PPI, of which 86 (62%) were de novo PPI prescriptions. A total of 129 patients (94%) received esomeprazole (according to the hospital drug policy). The most frequent dosage was at 40 mg once daily. Use of PPI for SUP was evaluated in 67 patients. A total of 53 patients (79%) had no risk factors for SUP. Twelve and two patients had one or two risk factors, respectively. At discharge, PPI prophylaxis was continued in 33% of patients with a de novo PPI prescription. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the overuse of PPIs in non-intensive care unit patients and the inappropriate continuation of PPI prescriptions at discharge. Treatment recommendations for SUP are needed to restrict PPI use for justified indications.

Identificador

http://serval.unil.ch/?id=serval:BIB_F45B163EE406

isbn:1365-2753 (Electronic)

pmid:22420909

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01838.x

isiid:000315964800024

Idioma(s)

en

Fonte

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 374-378

Tipo

info:eu-repo/semantics/article

article