A222 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF HEPATIC ENCEPHALOPATHY AND SPONTANEOUS BACTERIAL PERITONITIS IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed medications which are indicated in various different gastrointestinal (GI) diseases, including peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disorder and upper GI bleeding. There is some evidence to suggest that PPI use in cirrhosis may predispose to the development of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), albeit with some controversy. Aims We aim to conduct a retrospective epidemiological analysis of the association between PPI use in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and prevalence of HE and SBP. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 953 adult patients (mean age 62.3 (SD=12.2)) with cirrhosis admitted to the Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. A chart review was conducted and relevant information extracted. Results Average MELD-Na on admission was 17.4 (SD = 7.5) with no significant differences when stratified by in-hospital PPI use (p=0.53). 14.7% of patients had a prior history of HE, 5.4% SBP, 31.6% ascites, 9.3% hepatocellular carcinoma and 1.2% hepatorenal syndrome. 26.4% of patients had a history of varices, of which 34.4% had previous variceal bleeding. 45.4% of patients were on a PPI prior to admission and 69.8% during their hospitalization. Patients with a previous history of HE (16.8% vs. 9.6% p=0.006), varices (31.4% vs. 14.2% p<0.001) and variceal bleed (11.6% vs. 3.1% p<0.001) were more likely to be exposed to a PPI in-hospital. Mortality rate during index admission was 19.4%. There was no significant association noted between the incidence of HE (31.2% vs. 25.0% p=0.06) or SBP (10.4% vs. 8.0% p=0.25) and in-hospital PPI use. There was also no significant association between PPI use and infectious complications, including bacteremia (8.6% vs. 7.6% p=0.63), pneumonia (12.7% vs. 12.5% p=0.95), urinary tract infections (9.2% vs. 6.6% p=0.19) and clostridium difficile (3.8% vs. 2.1% p=0.18). Patients on a PPI had greater in-hospital mortality (22.0% vs. 13. 5% p=0.002), although there was no significance between cause of death (p=0.31) nor death from infectious complications (18.5% vs. 23.1% p=0.52) between groups. Length of stay (LOS) was longer in patients exposed to PPI (median (IQR) 7 (4–17) vs 6 (3–13) p=0.03). Similar findings were noted on subgroup analysis of decompensated patients. Conclusions We did not observe a significant difference in HE, SBP or infectious complications among this cohort of cirrhotic patients by in-hospital PPI use. However, there was a significantly higher mortality rate noted in hospital and longer LOS, despite similar baseline MELD-Na and causes of death. Further study and judicious PPI prescribing practices in this vulnerable population of patients is warranted. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».