MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211014785 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezac124

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers in the cardiac surgical population: insights from the PEPTIC trial

2022· article· en· W4211014785 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sean van Diepen, Tim Coulson, Xiaoming Wang, Dawn Opgenorth, Danny J. Zuege, J. Arthur Harris, Malik Agyemang, Daniel J. Niven, Rinaldo Bellomo, Stephen E. Wright, Paul J. Young, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchHealth Research BoardIntensive Care Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioIntensive care unitInternal medicinePopulationPepticGastrointestinal bleedingConfidence intervalGastroenterologyUpper gastrointestinal bleedingRandomized controlled trialCardiac surgeryAnesthesiaEndoscopyPeptic ulcer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The comparative effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the cardiac surgical intensive care unit population is uncertain. Although the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial reported a higher risk of mortality in the PPI arm with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding, detailed information on surgical variables and clinically relevant surgical subgroups was not available. METHODS: The analysis included all Canadian cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial. Data were electronically linked using unique patient identifiers to a clinical information system. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infections, ventilator-associated conditions and length of stay. RESULTS: We studied 823 (50.6%) randomized to PPIs and 805 (49.4%) to histamine-2-receptor blockers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in hospital mortality [PPI: 4.3% vs histamine-2 receptor blockers: 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.70], gastrointestinal bleeding (3.9% vs 4.8%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66-1.81), C. difficile infections (0.9% vs 0.1%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.59), ventilator-associated conditions (1.6% vs 1.7%, aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00) or median length of stay (9.2 vs 9.8 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 85% CI 0.99-1.13). No significant treatment differences were observed among subgroups of interest or per-protocol populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a secondary analysis of cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial in Canada, no differences in effectiveness or safety were observed between use of PPIs and histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207