P79 What’s SUP – Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in intensive care units, are we overprescribing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD) refers to stress-related response of the gastric mucosa ranging from single lesions to multiple ulcers that occur secondary to haemodynamic changes and inflammatory signals in critical illness.1 This is increased in patients with risk factors including respiratory failure, coagulopathy, hypotension, sepsis, hepatic failure, renal failure, surgery, burns, and major trauma.2 Thus, most patients admitted in the ICU are prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis(SUP).3 However, there have been increasing concerns related to the adverse effects of SUP such as nosocomial pneumonia and Clostridium difficile infection.4 This, together with multicentre studies on cost-benefit analyses, have prompted strict guidelines for initiation and discontinuation of SUP5 Despite these guidelines, patients who do not meet the criteria are often initiated on SUP and are continued on it beyond the timeframe recommended. With this background I undertook a quality improvement project (QIP) to assess prescription of SUP. Methods As per guidelines, SUP in the ICU should be initiated in patients who are on invasive mechanical ventilation, within 48 hours of intubation if they are not on nasogastric feeds; or if on nasogastric feeds but have coagulopathy, on anticoagulation/steroids, have acute kidney injury (AKI)/sepsis/multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) or had a previous gastrointestinal bleed. SUP should be discontinued when these risk factors no longer exist unless an additional indication for use.5 The QIP was registered and over a period of 3 weeks, data was audited from 30 patients who were admitted in our 10-bedded ICU. Following this, posters detailing SUP prescription guidelines were put up. An email will also be shortly released. PDSA cycle 2 aims to review compliance post these measures. Results Out of 30 patients, 19(63.3%) met the criteria for SUP initiation and SUP was initiated. SUP was also initiated for 2 patients who did not meet the criteria. In terms of discontinuation, SUP was continued for 12 patients (40%) for whom SUP should have been discontinued when they no longer possessed the risk factors, 2 patients required SUP to be continued and 3 patients died in ICU. Conclusion Initiation of SUP seems to be prompt among most clinicians. However, despite known adverse effects and well-established guidelines, SUP is often continued beyond recommended timeframe. Serial education measures are needed to ensure better compliance to guidelines. Results from the next PDSA cycle will provide useful information. Further cycles to address the barriers to compliance have been planned. References Stollman N, Metz DC. Pathophysiology and prophylaxis of stress ulcer in intensive care unit patients. J Crit Care. 2005;20(1):35–45. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, Marshall JC, Leasa D, Hall R, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian critical care trials group. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(6):377–8. Saeed M, Bass S, Chaisson NF. Which ICU patients need stress ulcer prophylaxis? Cleve Clin J Med. 2022;89(7):363–7. MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):564–74. Ye Z, Reintam Blaser A, Lytvyn L, Wang Y, Guyatt GH, Mikita JS, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6722.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".