ライフサイエンスコーパス: stress ulcer prophylaxis

1 parable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

2 trial to evaluate the safety of withholding stress ulcer prophylaxis.

3 on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

4 savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis.

5 s: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 3.4%; stress ulcer prophylaxis, 2.1%).

6 as most frequently indicated as a reason for stress ulcer prophylaxis (68.6%), followed by shock/hypo

7 rature to determine the benefit and risks of stress ulcer prophylaxis and the moderating effect of en

8 receptor antagonists, the adverse effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis, and overall cost-effectiveness

9 ng, sucralfate instead of H2-antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and selective digestive tract

10 nclude prevention of venous thromboembolism, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and semirecumbent positioning

11 r =90%); 3) provide sedation, analgesia, and stress ulcer prophylaxis; and 4) use a 10 g/dL hemoglobi

12 Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU

13 ess ulcer prophylaxis, use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis, chlorhexidine oral rinse, sele

14 exidine, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, daily spontaneous breathing tr

15 In those patients who were fed enterally, stress ulcer prophylaxis did not alter the risk of gastr

16 ucational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service.

17 (H2RBs) are often prescribed for patients as stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs in the intensive care uni

18 e patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (m

19 will review current controversies related to stress ulcer prophylaxis for critically ill adult patien

20 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by a compr

21 Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis had no effect on hospital morta

22 Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved gu

23 Selected publications describing stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult patients were retrieve

24 wever, 28.6% of physicians surveyed initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis in all ICU patients, regardless

25 ump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients unde

26 The use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients requiring CVVH resu

27 The first-line agents selected for stress ulcer prophylaxis include histamine-2 receptor an

28 This suggests that for stress ulcer prophylaxis, intermittent dosing with an in

29 Despite widespread incorporation of stress ulcer prophylaxis into practice around the world,

30 Stress ulcer prophylaxis is commonly administered to cri

31 those patients receiving enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis may not be required and, indeed

32 Stress ulcer prophylaxis may, however, increase the risk

33 rm trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on us

34 stics outweighed patient characteristics for stress ulcer prophylaxis (omega, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54

35 nfluence of enteral nutrition on the risk of stress ulcer prophylaxis, our findings should be conside

36 eep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (p < .05), stress ulcer prophylaxis (p < .01), oral care for ventil

37 the processes of venous-thromboembolism and stress ulcer prophylaxis provision.

38 Many stress ulcer prophylaxis recommendations are based on ol

39 overall cost-effectiveness of the available stress ulcer prophylaxis regimens.

40 ibe the patients most likely to benefit from stress ulcer prophylaxis, review the comparative efficac

41 frequent event; however, implementation of a stress ulcer prophylaxis risk stratification scheme for

42 Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be given to all patients

43 Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to patients c

44 Two stress ulcer prophylaxis strategies were compared (prefe

45 Although mainly applied temporarily for stress ulcer prophylaxis, their application is frequentl

46 onist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.

47 ylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestin

48 ylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestin

49 tiveness, but also the cost-effectiveness of stress ulcer prophylaxis today.

50 on (avoidance of unnecessary antibiotics and stress ulcer prophylaxis, use of sucralfate for stress u

51 ressive drugs to critically ill patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis warrants further evaluation.

52 ase analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine recep

53 The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 +/- 4.36 days in phase

54 alized adults with septic shock, PPI use for stress ulcer prophylaxis was associated with a significa

55 Therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis was monitored.

56 uled intermittent intravenous ranitidine for stress ulcer prophylaxis were enrolled in the study.

57 Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis with a histamine-2 receptor blo

58 in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy h

59 uiring mechanical ventilation, a strategy of stress ulcer prophylaxis with use of proton pump inhibit