@article{
 title = {Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in australian and new zealand intensive care units},
 type = {article},
 year = {2014},
 identifiers = {[object Object]},
 pages = {170-174},
 volume = {16},
 id = {f0dd89f5-ff96-3358-84a3-bfb85a5e7f9c},
 created = {2017-12-18T01:46:59.570Z},
 file_attached = {true},
 profile_id = {6c9edcaf-81dc-3357-bb56-dee7616baa0c},
 group_id = {ac4e17e4-c387-3e1e-aa52-1ae5d129a0ef},
 last_modified = {2017-12-21T21:01:38.694Z},
 read = {true},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 private_publication = {false},
 abstract = {BACKGROUND: Intensivists frequently prescribe proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) to intensive care unit patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). Despite the common use of SUP medicines, there is limited high-level evidence to support the choice between them. AIM: To describe self-reported practice of SUP by Australian and New Zealand intensivists. METHOD: An online questionnaire of intensivists between 13 January and 3 February 2014. RESULTS: Seventy-two intensivists responded to the survey: 61 (85%) practised in public metropolitan ICUs and 13/48 (27%) practised in paediatric ICUs. Fifty-two (72%) respondents indicated that PPIs were their preferred SUP medicine. Respondents estimated that an average of 84% of ventilated and 53% of non-ventilated patients received SUP medicines during their ICU admission. Seven respondents (9%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with H2RBs versus PPIs. Ten respondents (14%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk of Clostridium difficile infection, and 15 respondents (21%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk or ventilator-associated pneumonia with PPIs versus H2RBs. Most respondents (64 [89%]) agreed or strongly agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the choice of an optimal SUP medicine, and 58 respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed to patient enrollment in an RCT comparing PPIs with H2RBs. CONCLUSION: Most survey respondents felt that current evidence is insufficient to justify the preferential use of PPIs or H2RBs for SUP and would enroll patients in a comparative SUP RCT.},
 bibtype = {article},
 author = {Eastwood, Glenn M. and Litton, Ed and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Bailey, Michasel J. and Festa, Mario and Beasley, Richard W. and Young, Paul J.},
 journal = {Critical Care and Resuscitation},
 number = {3}
}

{"_id":"gHMwau2DLqHvzd6Lg","bibbaseid":"eastwood-litton-bellomo-bailey-festa-beasley-young-opinionsandpracticeofstressulcerprophylaxisinaustralianandnewzealandintensivecareunits-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-12-18T01:51:13.342Z","title":"Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in australian and new zealand intensive care units","author_short":["Eastwood, G., M.","Litton, E.","Bellomo, R.","Bailey, M., J.","Festa, M.","Beasley, R., W.","Young, P., J."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in australian and new zealand intensive care units","type":"article","year":"2014","identifiers":"[object Object]","pages":"170-174","volume":"16","id":"f0dd89f5-ff96-3358-84a3-bfb85a5e7f9c","created":"2017-12-18T01:46:59.570Z","file_attached":"true","profile_id":"6c9edcaf-81dc-3357-bb56-dee7616baa0c","group_id":"ac4e17e4-c387-3e1e-aa52-1ae5d129a0ef","last_modified":"2017-12-21T21:01:38.694Z","read":"true","starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"private_publication":false,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Intensivists frequently prescribe proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) to intensive care unit patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). Despite the common use of SUP medicines, there is limited high-level evidence to support the choice between them. AIM: To describe self-reported practice of SUP by Australian and New Zealand intensivists. METHOD: An online questionnaire of intensivists between 13 January and 3 February 2014. RESULTS: Seventy-two intensivists responded to the survey: 61 (85%) practised in public metropolitan ICUs and 13/48 (27%) practised in paediatric ICUs. Fifty-two (72%) respondents indicated that PPIs were their preferred SUP medicine. Respondents estimated that an average of 84% of ventilated and 53% of non-ventilated patients received SUP medicines during their ICU admission. Seven respondents (9%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with H2RBs versus PPIs. Ten respondents (14%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk of Clostridium difficile infection, and 15 respondents (21%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk or ventilator-associated pneumonia with PPIs versus H2RBs. Most respondents (64 [89%]) agreed or strongly agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the choice of an optimal SUP medicine, and 58 respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed to patient enrollment in an RCT comparing PPIs with H2RBs. CONCLUSION: Most survey respondents felt that current evidence is insufficient to justify the preferential use of PPIs or H2RBs for SUP and would enroll patients in a comparative SUP RCT.","bibtype":"article","author":"Eastwood, Glenn M. and Litton, Ed and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Bailey, Michasel J. and Festa, Mario and Beasley, Richard W. and Young, Paul J.","journal":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","number":"3","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {Opinions and practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in australian and new zealand intensive care units},\n type = {article},\n year = {2014},\n identifiers = {[object Object]},\n pages = {170-174},\n volume = {16},\n id = {f0dd89f5-ff96-3358-84a3-bfb85a5e7f9c},\n created = {2017-12-18T01:46:59.570Z},\n file_attached = {true},\n profile_id = {6c9edcaf-81dc-3357-bb56-dee7616baa0c},\n group_id = {ac4e17e4-c387-3e1e-aa52-1ae5d129a0ef},\n last_modified = {2017-12-21T21:01:38.694Z},\n read = {true},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n private_publication = {false},\n abstract = {BACKGROUND: Intensivists frequently prescribe proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) to intensive care unit patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). Despite the common use of SUP medicines, there is limited high-level evidence to support the choice between them. AIM: To describe self-reported practice of SUP by Australian and New Zealand intensivists. METHOD: An online questionnaire of intensivists between 13 January and 3 February 2014. RESULTS: Seventy-two intensivists responded to the survey: 61 (85%) practised in public metropolitan ICUs and 13/48 (27%) practised in paediatric ICUs. Fifty-two (72%) respondents indicated that PPIs were their preferred SUP medicine. Respondents estimated that an average of 84% of ventilated and 53% of non-ventilated patients received SUP medicines during their ICU admission. Seven respondents (9%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with H2RBs versus PPIs. Ten respondents (14%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk of Clostridium difficile infection, and 15 respondents (21%) were concerned or very concerned about the possible greater risk or ventilator-associated pneumonia with PPIs versus H2RBs. Most respondents (64 [89%]) agreed or strongly agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the choice of an optimal SUP medicine, and 58 respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed to patient enrollment in an RCT comparing PPIs with H2RBs. CONCLUSION: Most survey respondents felt that current evidence is insufficient to justify the preferential use of PPIs or H2RBs for SUP and would enroll patients in a comparative SUP RCT.},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {Eastwood, Glenn M. and Litton, Ed and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Bailey, Michasel J. and Festa, Mario and Beasley, Richard W. and Young, Paul J.},\n journal = {Critical Care and Resuscitation},\n number = {3}\n}","author_short":["Eastwood, G., M.","Litton, E.","Bellomo, R.","Bailey, M., J.","Festa, M.","Beasley, R., W.","Young, P., J."],"urls":{"Paper":"http://bibbase.org/service/mendeley/6c9edcaf-81dc-3357-bb56-dee7616baa0c/file/79e50119-adc8-7877-08a4-84162e7c7252/2014-Opinions_and_practice_of_stress_ulcer_prophylaxis_in_australian_and_new_zealand_intensive_care_units.pdf.pdf"},"bibbaseid":"eastwood-litton-bellomo-bailey-festa-beasley-young-opinionsandpracticeofstressulcerprophylaxisinaustralianandnewzealandintensivecareunits-2014","role":"author","downloads":0},"search_terms":["opinions","practice","stress","ulcer","prophylaxis","australian","new","zealand","intensive","care","units","eastwood","litton","bellomo","bailey","festa","beasley","young"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[]}