15 research outputs found
The efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear
1152: How do distress levels affect women’s decision-making for invasive prenatal genetic testing?
Recommended from our members
The clinical evaluation committee in a large multicenter phase 3 trial of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in patients with severe sepsis (PROWESS): Role, methodology, and results
Objective: In the multinational PROWESS trial, drotrecogin alfa (activated) significantly reduced mortality rate in patients with severe sepsis compared with placebo. The use of large multiple-enter trials can potentially complicate interpretation of results in severe sepsis populations because of variability in medical attitudes and practices and the frequency of confounding events such as protocol violations. The objective of this study was to perform a blinded, critical, integrated review of data from the 1,690 severe sepsis patients from 164 medical centers enrolled in the PROWESS trial using a Clinical Evaluation Committee.
Design: Blinded, critical, integrated review of data.
Setting: Participating sites.
Patients: The 1,690 severe sepsis patients from 164 medical centers enrolled in the PROWESS trial.
Interventions: We performed analyses of the optimal cohort, defined as patients who had full compliance with the protocol, had evidence of an infection, and received adequate anti-infective therapy. We also performed other analyses, including significant underlying disorders, life support measures, and causes of death.
Measurements and Main Results: The optimal cohort of 81.4% of the intention-to-treat population [drotrecogin alfa (activated), n = 695; placebo, n = 680] had similar baseline severity of illness between the two groups, a similar pharmacodynamic effect, and a relative risk of death estimate consistent with that observed in the overall PROWESS trial (0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.99 vs. 0.806, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.94). A beneficial effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) similarly was observed in patients with significant underlying disorders (0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.93) who were more severely ill and had a higher percentage of patients forgoing life-sustaining therapy. In contrast with the original investigator determinations, a benefit associated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment in urinary tract infection adjudicated by the Clinical Evaluation Committee was observed.
Conclusions: The survival benefit associated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) use was consistent with the results of the overall trial regardless of whether patients met criteria of the optimal cohort or had a significant underlying disorder