ライフサイエンスコーパス: stress ulcer

1 g, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

2 15.4 [95% CI, 11.3-21.1]) and prevention of stress ulcers (96% vs 83%, respectively; OR, 4.57 [95% C

3 Major factors responsible for stress ulcer are decreased blood flow, mucosal ischemia,

4 astric acid suppression in the prevention of stress ulcer bleeding and in the management of upper gas

5 commonly prescribed for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding.

6 ists for prophylaxis of clinically important stress ulcer bleeding.

7 unwarranted SUP in patients with low risk of stress ulcer gastrointestinal bleeding is prohibitive.

8 Stress ulcers present a risk of clinically important ble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Stress ulcer prophylaxis is commonly administered to cri

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

27 Stress ulcer prophylaxis may, however, increase the risk

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

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

30 Many stress ulcer prophylaxis recommendations are based on ol

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

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

33 Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be given to all patients

34 Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to patients c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42 Therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis was monitored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis.

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

61 (i.e., laboratory work, nursing assessment, stress ulcer protection, immobilization protection, nutr

62 Can intravenous acid suppression prevent stress ulcer-related bleeding or prevent rebleeding in p

63 vent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-