Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Value of Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Acute, Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Rodriguez EA, Donath E, Waljee AK, Sussman DA. Value of Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors in Acute, Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis. Journal of clinical gastroenterology. 2017 Sep 1; 51(8):707-719.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are the standard medical treatment in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVGIB). Optimal route of PPI delivery has been questioned. AIM: The aim was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the endpoints of risk of rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), surgery (ROS), mortality, and total units of blood transfused (UBT) among trials evaluating acid suppressive medications in ANVGIB. METHODS: A total of 39 studies using IV PPI drip, IV scheduled PPI, oral PPI, H2-receptor antagonists, and placebo were identified. Network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons and Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for calculation of probability superiority. RESULTS: No difference was observed between IV PPI drip and scheduled IV PPI for mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% credibility interval, 0.56-2.21), LOS (0.04, -0.49 to 0.44), ROS (1.27, 0.64-2.35) and risk of rebleeding within 72 hours, 1 week, and 1 month [(0.98, 0.48-1.95), (0.59, 0.13-2.03), (0.82, 0.28-2.16)]. Oral PPIs were as effective as IV scheduled PPIs and IV PPI drip for LOS (0.22, -0.61 to 0.79 and 0.16, -0.56 to 0.80) and UBT (-0.25, -1.23 to 0.65 and -0.06, -0.71 to 0.65) and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS (0.30, 0.10 to 0.78). CONCLUSION: Scheduled IV PPIs were as effective as IV PPI drip for most outcomes. Oral PPIs were comparable to scheduled IV for LOS and UBT and superior to IV PPI drip for ROS. Conclusions should be tempered by low frequency endpoints such as ROS, but question the need for IV PPI drip in ANVGIB.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.