GI bleed;

Is there any evidence that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) benefit patients with acute pancreatitis?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Despite their widespread use, there is no firm evidence that PPIs should be routinely prescribed in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP).1   In fact, current guidelines do not include the use of PPIs as standard therapy in  AP. 1-3

Although a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis involving 6 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies of patients with AP found a significant decrease in the rate of pancreatic pseudocyst formation in patients who received PPI, no significant difference in the rates of 7-day mortality, length of hospital stay, or acute respiratory distress syndrome was found when compared to control groups.3

Theoretically, PPIs may improve the course of AP through reduction in the incidence of stress-related upper GI hemorrhagic complications.  However, the incidence of such complications in AP is quite low, ranging from 1.2% to 14.5%, with great majority of cases (>85%) unrelated to peptic ulcer disease. 3,4  These findings may help explain why it has been difficult to show any benefit for use of PPIs in reducing the incidence of GI bleed in AP.3,5

Similarly, although PPIs have been shown to reduce secretin-stimulated bicarbonate secretion by the pancreas, the clinical significance of this finding in the overall course of AP—except perhaps a lower risk of pseudocysts—remains unclear.3 Parenthetically, experimental studies have reported contradictory results regarding the inhibition of pancreatic enzyme production by PPIs,  with omeprazole failing to suppress amylase release in isolated pancreatic acini while pantoprazole showing reduced amylase secretion in rats.3

It is also unclear how the reported anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs may benefit the clinical course of AP.3,6 What is clear is that any potential benefits of PPIs in AP should be weighed against their potential adverse effects, including the risk of nosocomial pneumonia, Clostridiodes difficile infection, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.7,8 

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that PPIs may not only inhibit acid production by gastric parietal cells but also interfere with bactericidal activity of neutrophils?  One potential mechanism is interference with proton pump-dependent H202 generation within lysosomes necessary to create a highly acidic and bactericidal environment. 9  Fascinating!

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Arvanitakis M, Dumonceau JM, Albert J, et al. Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline. Endoscopy 2018; 50:524-46. Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline – European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)
  2. Crocket SD, Wani S, Gardner TB, et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1096-1101. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis (gastrojournal.org)
  3. Horvath IL, Bunduc S, Hanko B , et al. No evidence for the benefit of PPIs in the treatment of acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 2023;13:2791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29939-S
  4. Rana SS, Sharma V, Bhasin Dk, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding in acute pancreatitis: etiology, clinical features, risk factors and outcome. Tropical Gastroenterology 2015;36:31-35. http://www.tropicalgastro.com/articles/36/1/gastrointestinal-bleeding-in-acute.html
  5. Demcsak A, Soos A, Kincses L, et al. Acid suppression therapy, gastrointestinal bleeding and infection in acute pancreatitis-An international cohort study. Pancreatology 2020;20:1323-31.lyso https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S142439032030658X?via%3Dihub
  6. Hackert T, Tudor S, Felix K, et al. Effects of pantoprazole in experimental acute pancreatitis. Comparative Study 2010;8:551-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20851132/
  7. Elzouki AB, Neffati N, Rasoul FA, et al. Increased risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients using proton pump inhibitors. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2019; 26:83-89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454390/#:~:text=The%20result%20showed%20that%20PPI,medical%20literature%20confirm%20this%20association.
  8. Yibirin M, De Oliveira D, Valera R, et al. Cureus 2021;13:e12759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887997/#:~:text=The%20most%20likely%20explanation%20for,incidence%20of%20pneumonia%20%5B2%5D
  9. Ozatik O, Ozatik EY, Tesen Y, et al. Research into the effect of proton pump inhibitors on lungs and leukocytes. Turk J Gastroenterol 2021;32:1003-1011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8975296/

 

Disclosures/Disclaimers: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

Is there any evidence that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) benefit patients with acute pancreatitis?

Why do we often prescribe ceftriaxone in preference to fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Preference of ceftriaxone over fluoroquinolones (FQs) for prophylaxis of infection in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed (UGIB) can often be traced back to a small 2006 Spanish randomized controlled trial (RCT)1 which found a significantly lower rate of proved or possible bacterial infection and lower rate of fermentative Gram-negative bacilli infection in the ceftriaxone group (vs norfloxacin) over a 10-day period (11% vs 33% and 0% vs 11%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the incidence of proved bacterial infection (spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or bacteremia, P=0.07) or 10-day mortality between the 2 groups.   

It’s worth emphasizing that the primary impetus for this study was evaluation of the efficacy of ceftriaxone in patients with cirrhosis and UGIB in a setting where FQ Gram-negative bacilli was thought to be highly prevalent. Parenthetically, a similar RCT performed where the prevalence of FQ resistance was considered low failed to find a significant difference in breakthrough bacterial infection, rebleeding or mortality when ceftriaxone was compared to IV ciprofloxacin.2

Another caveat of the 2006 study was that an IV antibiotic (ceftriaxone) was compared to a oral antibiotic (norfloxacin) which, in the setting of active UGIB, may be problematic.

Despite these limitations, its favorable safety profile compared to FQs coupled with its ease of administration has often made ceftriaxone the drug of choice for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and UGIB. The 2016 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases considers ceftriaxone as the first choice in patients with advanced cirrhosis, on FQ prophylaxis, and in hospital settings with high prevalence of FQ resistant bacterial infection.3

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the prevalence of FQ resistant in Enterobacteriaceae may be as high as 30% in certain regions of U.S. and >50% in certain regions of the world? 4

Also see related 2 P4P pearls (1, 2) on the association of UGIB bleed with infections in patients with cirrhosis.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Fernandez J, Del Arbol LR, Gomez C, et al. Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. Gastroenterol 2006;131:1049-1056. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17030175/
  2. Pittayanon R, Reknimir R, Kullavanijaya P, et al. Intravenous ciprofloxacin vs ceftriaxone for the prevention of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding:A randomized controlled trial. Thai J Gastroenterol 2016;17:24-30. http://www.thaigastro.com/books.php?act=content&content_id=476&book_id=61
  3. Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, et al. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis:risk stratification, diagnosis and management: 2016 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2017;65:310-335. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27786365/
  4. Spellberg B, Doi Y. The rise of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in the community:scarier than we thought. J Infect Dis 2015;212:1853-1855. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25969562/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why do we often prescribe ceftriaxone in preference to fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed?

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) reduce bacterial infections, all-cause mortality, bacterial infection, mortality, rebleeding events and hospitalization.1

A 2011 Cochrane meta-analysis involving 12 trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis to no prophylaxis or placebo found reduction in bacterial infection (RR 0.35, 95% C.I., 0.26-0.47) and overall mortality (RR 0.79, 95% C.I. 0.63-0.98). It also found a significant reduction in rebleeding and days of hospitalization, based on more limited data. Trials in this meta-analysis involved a variety of antibiotics, including norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and ampicillin-sulbactam. 1

So why is ceftriaxone the often-favored bacterial prophylaxis in UGIB? First, infections in cirrhotic patients often originate from bacterial translocation through the GI tract with aerobic gram-negative GI flora expected to be susceptible to ceftriaxone.2 Second, the emerging quinolone resistance among aerobic Gram-negative bacteria 2 and frequent use of ciprofloxacin for prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis have made use of ceftriaxone in this setting more desirable than quinolones.

Of note, a 2006 study involving patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child Pugh B or C) and GI hemorrhage receiving either norfloxacin or ceftriaxone for 7 days found a significantly lower risk of suspected or proven infections (11% vs 33%) and bacteremia or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (2% vs 12%) in the ceftriaxone group; there was no difference in hospital mortality. 3 Although the overall prevalence of quinolone-resistant gram-negatives was unknown, 6 of 7 gram-negative bacilli isolated in the norfloxacin group were quinolone resistant.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that 30-40% of cirrhotic patients presenting with UGIB will develop a bacterial infection within a week of their admission? 1

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Chavez-Tapia NC, Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Tellez-Avila F, et al. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding-an updated Cochrane review. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:509-518. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04746.x
  2. Mallet M, Rudler M, Thabut D. Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology Reports 2017;5:185-192. https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/5/3/185/4002779
  3. Fernandez J, del Arbo LR, Gomez C, et al. Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1049-1056. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508506015356

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

How common are gastrointestinal symptoms in Covid-19?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Although GI symptoms such as diarrhea or nausea were initially thought to be uncommon among Covid-19 patients,1,2 more recent reports suggest that GI symptoms are relatively common.3-8

A review article found that as many as 50.0% of Covid-19 patients had diarrhea, ~30.0% had nausea, ~14.0% had gastrointestinal bleed, and 6.0% had abdominal pain.8  In a case series from New York City, ~25.0% of patients presented with diarrhea, while ~20.0% had nausea and vomiting. 9 

Some patients may have GI symptoms in the absence of any respiratory complaints.  Fecal tests for RNA  have found nearly one-third to a half of patients with Covid-19 shedding the virus, with some patients testing positive even after  respiratory specimens test negative.8 How often these patients harbor viable or infectious virus is not known, however.

Some have reported that as the severity of the disease worsens so do the GI symptoms.3 GI symptoms have also been associated with later presentation of Covid-19, higher liver enzymes and longer prothrombin time.3

Although the exact mechanism of GI symptoms in Covid-19 is unclear, direct invasion of virus is a plausible explanation. Indeed, potential targets for SARS-CoV-2 virus, the ACE2-expressing cells, have been identified in the GI tract, including the esophagus, gastric, intestinal and colonic epithelial cells.5,8  

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

 References

 

  1. Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. Clinical characteristics of Coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Eng J Med 2020, Feb 28. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032
  2. Young BE, Ong SWX, Kalimuddin S, et al. Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. March 3, 2020. (17% diarrhea) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762688
  3. Pan L, Mu M, Yang P, et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am j Gastroenterol 2020. https://journals.lww.com/ajg/Documents/COVID_Digestive_Symptoms_AJG_Preproof.pdf
  4. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novle coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020;395:497-506. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
  5. Gu J, Han B, Wang J. COVID-19: Gastrointestinal manifestations and potential fecal-oral transmission. J Gastroenterol https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(20)30281-X/pdf
  6. Wolfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with Covid-2019. Nature, April 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/a41586-020-2196-x
  7. Xiao F, Tang M, Zheng X, et al. Evidence of gastrointestinal infection of SARS-CoV-2. Gastroenterology 2020, March 3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508520302821?via%3Dihub
  8. Tian Y, Rong L, Nian W, et al. Review article: gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;March 29. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15731
  9. Goyal P, Choi JJ, Pinheiro LC, et al. Clinical characteristics of Covid-19 in New York City. N Engl J Med 2020.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2010419

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

How common are gastrointestinal symptoms in Covid-19?

Why is my patient with systemic amyloidosis at higher risk of bleeding?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The major mechanism of bleeding tendency in primary systemic amyloidosis (AL) appears to revolve around amyloid deposit infiltration of the vasculature and musculature, leading to amyloid angiopathy, fragility, impaired vasoconstriction, tears and hemorrhage. 1,2 Other potential mechanisms include:

  • Presence of plasma inhibitors of fibrinogen conversion to fibrin
  • Deficiencies of factor X, IX and V due to their affinity for amyloid substance
  • Presence of circulating heparin-like anticoagulants
  • Uremic platelet dysfunction in the presence of renal involvement

In a study involving 36 patients with AL, ~30% had bleeding symptoms with alterations of 1 or more clotting tests found in ~85%: prolonged prothrombin time (PT) ratio (22%), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (65%) and thrombin time (85%).1 

Clinical manifestations of amyloidosis related to its bleeding diathesis include petechiae, ecchymoses, purpura (“raccoon eyes when periorbital), uncontrollable epistaxis, gingival bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleed or submucosal hematomas. 1-6

Due to its convenience and relative safety, a biopsy of abdominal fat or minor salivary glands is often initially performed for definitive diagnosis of amyloidosis, followed by biopsy of specific organs (eg, kidney, liver), if needed. 3,6

Due to the potential risk of bleeding complications, transjugular liver biopsy is preferred over percutaneous approach. This is because the liver capsule is not perforated with transjugular liver biopsy and if bleeding occurs, the blood returns directly into the venous system rather than into the peritoneum. 7-8 

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that AL amyloidosis is the most common type of systemic amyloidosis in western countries? This is because the incidence of the other major type of amyloidosis (AA), often related to chronic infections or inflammatory diseases, has been dropping in these countries.3

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Gamba G, Montani N, Anesi E, et al. Clotting alterations in primary systemic amyloidosis. Haematologica 2000;85:289-92. https://moh-it.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/clotting-alterations-in-primary-systemic-amyloidosis
  2. Marconcini LAL, Stewart FM, Sonntag L, et al. AL amyloidosis complicated by persistent oral bleeding. Case Reports in Hematology 2015, Article ID 981346. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crihem/2015/981346/
  3. Desport E, Bridoux F, Sirac C, et al. AL Amyloidosis. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2012, 7:54. https://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-1172-7-54
  4. Yoshii S, Mabe K, Nosho K, et al. Submucosal hematoma is a highly suggestive finding for amyloid light-chain amyloidosis: Two case reports. W J Gastroenterol 2012;4:434-37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125904
  5. Kon T, Nakagawa N, Yoshikawa F, et al. Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis presenting hematochezia as the initial symptoms. Clin J Gastroenterol 2016;9:243. http://europepmc.org/article/med/27318996
  6. Petre S, Shah IA, Gilani N. Review article:gastrointestinal amyloidosis-clinical features, diagnosis and therapy. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:1006-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18363891
  7. Grant A, Neuberger J. Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. Gut 1999;45(Suppl IV):IV1-IV11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10485854
  8. Dohan A, Guerrache Y, Boudiaf M, et al. Transjugular liver biopsy: Indications, technique and results. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 2014;95:11-15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007769
Why is my patient with systemic amyloidosis at higher risk of bleeding?

Which patients outside of ICU setting should be placed on telemetry monitoring in the hospital?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Telemetry monitoring should be used in patients at increased risk of arrhythmias during hospitalization (1). While the American Heart Association provides expert opinion on telemetry for a variety of cardiac conditions (1), a more recent review (2) makes suggestions for common cardiac and non-cardiac diagnoses based on arrhythmia risk.

Telemetry is recommended for patients admitted for implantable cardioverter- defibrillator firing, second or third degree AV block, prolonged QT interval with ventricular arrhythmia, acute heart failure, acute cerebrovascular event,  acute coronary syndrome and massive blood transfusion.

Telemetry may be beneficial in syncope with arrhythmia as a suspected cause, gastrointestinal hemorrhage after endoscopy, atrial arrhythmias on rate or rhythm control therapy, electrolyte imbalance and subacute congestive heart failure.

Telemetry is not generally indicated in chest pain with normal EKG and cardiac markers, COPD exacerbation, PE if the patient is stable and on anticoagulation, and cases requiring minor blood transfusion. 

Contributed by Joome Suh, MD, Boston, MA

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References 

(1) Drew BJ, Califf RM, Funk M, et al. Practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: endorsed by the International Society of Computerized Electrocardiology and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Circulation 2004;110:2721–46. 

(2) Chen EH and Hollander JE. When do patients need admission to a telemetry bed? The Journal of Emergency Medicine 2007:33(1):53-60.

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers, Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School or its affiliated institutions. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Which patients outside of ICU setting should be placed on telemetry monitoring in the hospital?