1. Introduction
Liver cirrhosis can result from various factors, including alcohol consumption, chronic infection with hepatitis viruses, primary biliary cholangitis, autoimmune disorders, or when the origin is cryptogenic. It can lead to numerous complications, like upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), ascites, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and patients are at an increased risk of mortality [1,2]. Several patient-related factors, such as alcohol use, advanced age, type 2 diabetes, or being overweight, contribute to increased morbidity and mortality [3]. Another host-related factor is the disturbance in the composition of the gut microbiota and dysbiosis, which is involved in the pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) [4].
PPIs have been in use for over 30 years and are widely perceived as a safe option by many healthcare providers [5]. PPIs reduce stomach acid secretion, thereby mitigating the associated risks. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks to utilizing PPIs: they can alter the gut microbiota, leading to dysbiosis, which, in turn, triggers intestinal inflammation and enhances intestinal permeability [6]. Prolonged use of PPIs increases the risk of community-acquired pneumonia, especially during the first month of therapy, and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia (OR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.12–2.31), as shown by published metanalyses [7]. In patients with liver cirrhosis, some studies reported an increased risk of SBP in patients who took PPIs within 7 days before hospitalization [8]. A recent meta-analysis reported an RR of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.10–1.55) for SBP and 1.37 (95% CI 1.07–1.76) for overall infection risk in cirrhotic patients who use PPIs [9]. PPI exposure of 1 month increases the 1-month and 3-month hospital readmission rate and hepatic decompensation of liver cirrhosis (aRR = 1.61, (1.30–2.11); p < 0.001). Longer PPI exposure (>90 days) was associated with increased mortality (HR = 2.10, (1.20–3.67); p = 0.009) [10]. Even in short-term use, studies suggest acid rebound, defined as increased gastric acid production surpassing pre-PPI treatment levels [11]. There is an increasing trend in PPI prescriptions in internal medicine and gastroenterology [12]. In patients with liver cirrhosis, 63.6% had been prescribed PPIs, and among these, 62.7% had no clear indication for the prescription [13].
On the one hand, there is widespread endorsement of this medication by numerous healthcare professionals over time; on the other hand, concerns about its potential complications have been raised. These recent studies underscore the critical balance between the advantages and risks, highlighting the necessity of prescribing PPIs with precise indications, particularly in patients with liver cirrhosis. The objective of this study was to ascertain the frequency of PPI prescriptions in hospitalized patients with liver cirrhosis and establish the appropriateness of the indications and the route of PPI administration. The secondary objectives were 1. to analyze the various indications for PPI prescription at discharge and the duration of the prescription; 2. for patients without PPIs, we examined whether the treatment for their associated conditions could have required PPI administration but was omitted by physicians.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population
This study was retrospective and included consecutive liver cirrhosis inpatients admitted to the 2nd Medical Department of our hospital between January 2022 and 15 May 2023. The following ICD codes were used for the selection of the patients: K70.0 “Alcoholic fatty liver cirrhosis”, K70.3 “Alcoholic liver cirrhosis”, K71.7 “Toxic liver disease with fibrosis and cirrhosis of the liver”, K74.0 “Hepatic fibrosis”, K74.1 “Hepatic sclerosis”, K74.2 “Hepatic fibrosis with hepatic sclerosis”, K74.3 “Primary biliary cirrhosis”, K74.4 “Secondary biliary cirrhosis”, K74.5 “Liver cirrhosis, unspecified”, and K74.6 “Other and unspecified cirrhosis of the liver”. The healthcare team responsible for treating hospitalized patients comprised five gastroenterologists and twelve internal medicine physicians.
2.2. Definitions
For every patient, we recorded the type of PPI prescription: PPI treatment during their hospitalization (patients who received at least one day of PPI treatment during their hospitalization) and PPI at discharge (patients who were discharged with a prescription for a PPI).
To evaluate the appropriateness of these prescriptions, we employed the consensus on PPIs published by Scarpignato et al. [14] in 2016. This consensus discusses both PPI indications for treatment (in GERD, PUD, etc.) and prophylaxis and includes all topics from various individual guidelines, such as those from NICE [15] or the American College of Gastroenterology guidelines [16,17] that are used in other studies [13,18,19,20].
We considered an indication to be valid when the PPI was administered for one of the following: the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) (with erosive esophagitis or PPI responsive non-erosive GERD), UGIB, Non-Steroid-Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID)-induced ulcers, PUD, gastritis or duodenitis, HP eradication, functional dyspepsia, prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers in patients with previous history of UGIB, and Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis (SUP) in high-risk patients (critically ill patients with respiratory failure or coagulopathy). In addition, the administration of PPIs in patients using antiplatelet therapy and with a high risk for upper GI complications was valid in the following cases: age > 65 years, patients taking two antiplatelet drugs, concurrent usage of NSAIDs and/or steroids, concomitant use of an anticoagulant, or a history of prior UGIB. Concomitant NSAID and corticosteroid treatment was also considered a valid indication based on the above-mentioned guidelines [14].
Each patient’s file was reviewed independently by two of the researchers to determine whether the prescription of PPIs was aligned with any of these criteria or not. We also considered no valid indication for the following two scenarios: 1. the indication was correct, but the duration of prescription was incorrect (either not mentioned by the physician or longer than the maximum duration reported in the consensus) [14]; or 2. there was an improper route of administration (intravenous when oral administration would have been sufficient). For the patients with no valid indication, we tried to identify a possible reason for prescribing a PPI, and the following categories were recorded: (i) “anticoagulant alone” for patients who had an anticoagulant but no antiplatelet was associated, (ii) “antiplatelet low risk” for patients who did not fit in any high-risk category, as mentioned above; (iii) “NSAID alone” for those who had NSAID without prescription for corticosteroids or antiplatelets, (iv) “corticosteroid alone” for those who had corticosteroid without prescription for NSAID or antiplatelets, and (v) “too long duration of prescription” for a correct indication but the duration for prescription surpassed the duration recommended by the guidelines [14]. The remaining cases were included in the category (vi) “no indication found”. When the same patient had been hospitalized multiple times, we considered each hospitalization separately.
2.3. Data Collection and Assessment
All medical files were reviewed, and for each one, we collected age, gender, etiology of liver cirrhosis, date of admission, reason for hospitalization, relevant comorbidities (atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, coronary artery disease, osteoarthritis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin infection, GERD, and colitis with diarrhea), and complications of cirrhosis (hepatic encephalopathy, peritonitis, renal failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, esophageal varices, and UGIB). During hospitalization, we recorded the PPI prescription, the dose, and the indication. At discharge, we recorded the PPI prescription, the dose, the number of doses per day, the duration of the prescription, and the indication.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or percentage (%). For categorical variables, frequency tables were created, and p-values were calculated using the chi-squared test. The study protocol was approved by the Committee of Ethics of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania (No. 44 from 12 March 2024).
3. Results
3.1. Selection of Patients
The search retrieved a total of 203 patients. As shown in Figure 1, patients who met any of the following criteria were excluded: (i) patients who passed away within the first 7 days after admission; (ii) patients with other hepatic disease without liver cirrhosis; and (iii) patients transferred to another service within 24 h after admission. Based on these criteria, a total of 14 patients were excluded from the study. Of these, 10 patients had primary biliary cholangitis (but with no signs of cirrhosis), 2 were transferred to another department within 24 h after admission, and 2 passed away within 24 h after admission. Finally, a total of 189 consecutive patients were included in the current study. Among them, 113 patients received PPIs. We created two groups: 95 patients received PPIs during hospitalization, and 75 patients received PPIs at discharge. Ultimately, 54 patients received PPIs during hospitalization and at discharge.
3.2. Baseline Characteristics of Liver Cirrhosis Cohort
The average age of patients was 63.1 ± 9.7 years, and most of the patients were males. Chronic alcohol use was the most frequent etiology for liver cirrhosis, accounting for 99 patients (52.4%). The other etiologies are presented in Table 1. Cirrhosis was compensated in 79 (41.8%) patients and severely decompensated in 31 (16.4%) patients.
3.3. Comorbidities in Liver Cirrhosis Cohort
The most common comorbidity in our cohort was coronary artery disease, followed by infections and atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). The infections observed were pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin infections. In total, 43 patients (22.7%) had infections (including SBP). Three patients had Clostridioides difficile infection, while in two other patients, no etiologic factor was identified for diarrhea. One patient had non-infectious colitis (possible ischemic colitis or Crohn’s disease). Among the 94 patients on PPIs during hospital stays, 23 (24.4%) had infections, while 20 (27.4%) patients without PPIs (from the total of 73 patients) were diagnosed with an infection. The chi-square test showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.63) regarding the frequency of infection in relation to PPIs.
The most frequent complication of cirrhosis was esophageal varices, present in 104 (55.0%) patients, followed by ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and renal failure. Other complications, like UGIB, hepatocellular carcinoma, or peritonitis, were present in less than 5% of cases (Table 2).
3.4. PPI Prescription during Hospital Stays and at Discharge and the Validity of Prescription
During hospitalization, 95 (50.2%) inpatients received PPIs, whereas 75 (39.7%) received it at discharge (Figure 3).
During hospitalization, 45 of the 95 (47.4%) patients on PPIs did not have a valid indication for their use. Among these, 21 patients (46.7%) had no identified reason for PPI use documented in their medical file. For the remaining 24 patients, the reasons for considering the indications non-valid are presented in Figure 4. Twelve patients received corticosteroids during the hospital stay, nine had anticoagulants, two received antiplatelet therapy, and one patient received NSAID alone. Among the 21 patients with no indication found for PPI prescription, 14 patients had portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG).
At discharge, of the 75 patients who received PPIs, 26 (34.7%) patients did not have a valid indication for their use, including 10 (38.4%) with no indication at all. Five out of ten patients with no indication found had PHG. Figure 4 depicts the reasons for considering the indications for PPI prescription “non valid” at discharge.
3.5. The Appropriate Indications for PPI Prescription in the Cohort of Patients with Liver Cirrhosis
The most common indication for PPI prescription was gastritis. This was reported in 27 (28.4%) patients during their hospital stays and in 33 (44.0%) patients at discharge. The second most common indication for PPI prescription during hospital stays was the use of antiplatelet drugs in patients with a high risk of GI complications, comprising 11 patients. The other valid indications for PPI prescription are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
3.6. Patients without PPI Treatment during Hospital Stays or at Discharge
Among the 73 patients with liver cirrhosis who did not receive PPIs during hospital stays or at discharge, 3 (4.1%) patients should have received PPIs for the following reasons: concomitant NSAID and corticosteroids administration (n = 1) and concomitant antithrombotic + anticoagulant treatment (n = 2).
3.7. Route of Administration
Of the 95 patients who received PPIs during hospital stays, only 2 patients were prescribed PPIs by intravenous route. This was justified in their files by difficulties in feeding due to swallowing disturbance. The remaining patients received oral PPIs.
4. Discussion
Our paper presents three major findings. The first major finding is that almost half of the patients had no valid indication for PPI administration during hospitalization and about one-third had no valid indication at discharge. The second major finding reveals that, for inpatients on PPIs, the most common invalid indication was prophylaxis against portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG), followed by the use of corticosteroids alone, and use of anticoagulants alone. PHG was the second reason for no valid indication at discharge, after corticoid alone. The third major finding indicates that, among all patients who took PPIs, the most frequently cited reason for prescription was the presence of gastritis.
Concerning the valid indications for PPIs, the results are consistent with the findings of other studies carried out elsewhere [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. A European study identified an inappropriate PPI usage rate of 61.5%, with “anticoagulant alone” as the leading unjustified reason, a finding that aligns with our study [18]. Similarly, research in Singapore showed a 54.1% inappropriate PPI use rate, but adherence to NICE and ACG guidelines reduced this figure slightly [18]. A study that addressed particularly PPI use in liver cirrhosis [13] included patients from a hepatology ward. They assessed the discharge forms and a list of patients assessed for orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). The research reported that more than 60% of patients had PPIs prescribed at discharge, with 62.7% of patients without a clinical diagnosis in accordance with the NICE guidelines for PPI prescription. Similarly, among patients listed for OLT, 73.7% had no indication for PPI prescription. The paper did not provide data on comorbidities that might necessitate chronic treatment with drugs that increase the risk of hemorrhage. Only patients taking PPIs for acid-related gastrointestinal conditions (gastritis, duodenitis, ulcer, GERD, and Barrett’s esophagus) were listed by authors as valid indications, and the NICE guidelines used as a reference cover only these aspects. The cohort in that study had a younger average age (56 years) compared to ours, suggesting a potentially lower prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. The authors believed that PPIs were prescribed to relieve abdominal discomfort, which is common in cirrhotic patients [13]. Similarly, Dultsz et al. reported that in their cohort of cirrhosis patients, 78.3% of patients were on PPIs, and 58% had PPIs for epigastric pain or abdominal discomfort. The authors also reported that PPI treatment is associated with higher mortality [20]. Once again, the other valid indications (i.e., concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy) [13] were not assessed. These studies collectively highlight a global trend of PPIs being frequently prescribed without valid indications.
PPIs are shown to decrease the risk of UGIB among users of low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular disease prophylaxis [22]. According to the current guidelines [14], not all patients taking an antiplatelet agent are recommended to receive a PPI; it is specifically indicated for those considered at a high risk of bleeding due to their age or the association of other drugs that increase the risk of GI bleeding (like NSAIDs, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants). The presence of liver cirrhosis or PHG is not typically considered a risk factor. Only a few of our patients (two during their hospital stay and one at discharge) were likely prescribed a PPI primarily due to their chronic antiplatelet therapy, as we were unable to identify any other risk factors. However, this number is relatively small in comparison to the number of patients for whom we could not discern any objective apparent reason for PPI administration, except for the presence of PHG. Our study lacked data on the specific symptoms of patients, which other studies have identified as a contributing factor to PPI overprescription [13,20]. Most patients without a clear indication for PPI prescription during their hospital stay had PHG identified during upper GI endoscopy, leading us to believe that this might have been the rationale behind the PPI prescription. Similarly, at discharge, PHG was the second reason for no valid indication. According to the consensus of Scarpignato [14], there is no evidence that PPIs prevent UGIB bleeding due to PHG, as it is not acid-related; therefore, PPIs should not be routinely prescribed in this condition [22,23]. There are few studies on this subject, and one of them [24] concluded that in cirrhotic patients, PPIs do not reduce the bleeding risk associated with portal hypertension. Gastric acid secretion is reduced in patients with liver cirrhosis, gastric acid secretion is already reduced [25,26], and further suppression with PPIs can lead to changes in microbiota and bacterial overgrowth [27].
In liver cirrhosis, a delicate balance between coagulation and hemorrhage exists [28,29]. Patients with liver cirrhosis may face risks of both hemorrhage and thrombosis, yet, as of now, accurate laboratory tests for assessing these risks are lacking. Physicians often exhibit reluctance to prescribe anticoagulants in liver cirrhosis due to the associated risk of life-threatening bleeding [30]. Bleeding is the most prevalent adverse effect of anticoagulants [31]. While anticoagulants do not elevate the risk of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis [32], they can induce nonvariceal GI bleeding or bleeding at other sites (retroperitoneal, intracranial, nasal, urinary, etc.) like in any other patient. Despite these risks, cirrhotic patients should receive anticoagulants, if necessary, like any other patients. Concomitant PPI treatment during anticoagulant therapy to prevent UGIB is not currently recommended [14,15]. Nevertheless, several studies report that PPIs reduced UGIB episodes in patients with chronic anticoagulant treatments [33], particularly when patients had a prior history of gastrointestinal bleeding [34]. In our study, one of the reasons for overprescribing PPIs was chronic treatment with an anticoagulant in the presence of liver cirrhosis. Most probably, clinicians adopted this measure as an extra precaution to prevent GI bleeding episodes, although to date, the data are insufficient to support this approach. According to the current guidelines [14,15,16,17], it is not advisable to routinely suggest the use of PPIs for individuals who are on anticoagulant medication.
Another non-valid indication for PPIs in our study was treatment with “corticosteroids alone” in the absence of other drugs that increase the risk of GI bleeding. The available evidence on the likelihood of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking corticosteroids is inconsistent [35,36,37]. Critically ill patients who are prescribed corticosteroids face an elevated risk of experiencing “clinically significant” GI bleeding [35], but it is important not to generalize this observation to all patient populations. Once more, the existing guidelines do not advocate the routine use of PPIs in patients who are taking corticosteroids [14,15,16,17].
Regarding the under-prescription of PPIs, to our knowledge, there are few studies on the subject. A study from China [38] found that 9.3% (n = 112) of inpatients who required PPIs for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis did not receive them. In our research, we found that only 4% of patients who were not using PPIs needed them. Interestingly, none of the previously mentioned studies [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] took this aspect into account when discussing the appropriateness of PPI utilization.
Our research reveals that nearly half of the patients with liver cirrhosis admitted to our department should not have been prescribed PPIs. It is important to note that our study focused on a particularly unique patient population consisting of individuals with liver cirrhosis. Furthermore, our cohort had a mean age of 63 years, with a significant proportion of patients also having coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. Portal hypertensive gastropathy by itself may not necessitate PPI treatment, although additional research may be needed to determine if this remains valid when coupled with antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.
PPIs increase the risk of infections [8,9,39]. One of the largest studies on this subject [39] considered both the daily dose and the total dose per month of each PPI class and reported that the risk of severe infection is higher with higher doses of PPIs. PPIs increase not only the risk of infection but also the risk of decompensation and, therefore, might contribute to a higher risk of liver-related death [39]. However, when prescribed according to appropriate indications, PPIs have a protective effect in terms of survival. PPIs should be prescribed only when clinically indicated and at the lowest effective dose to achieve the desired therapeutic outcome [40,41]. We did not find an association between PPI administration during hospital stays and infections. However, an important proportion of our patients were diagnosed with a concomitant infection that may have contributed to the development of decompensated liver cirrhosis. During hospital stays, we identified three (1.6%) patients with Clostridioides difficile colitis, and two of them received PPIs, concomitant with antibiotic treatment. Additionally, we had one patient with neutrocitic ascites, and he had a PPI prescription during hospitalization and at discharge.
Our data now demonstrate that despite existing concerns about the use of PPIs in individuals with cirrhosis, these drugs are still being widely prescribed without strict adherence to the established guidelines. It is true that except for the Italian consensus [14], the other existing guidelines [15,16,17] each cover a very specific topic regarding PPI use. Our study has several limitations derived from the retrospective design. We did not have access to information regarding the dose and the duration of prescriptions for PPIs during hospital stays. These data were not included in the electronic data that we used for this study. Extensive manual work would have been required for this specific information. We lacked information regarding the use of PPIs prior to hospital admission, making it difficult to make assumptions about any potential elevated infection risk associated with PPIs. Another limitation arises from the relatively small number of patients enrolled in this study and the fact that the research was exclusively conducted within one department of our hospital. Consequently, we cannot extrapolate the findings to apply universally across all healthcare settings. A further limitation is that we did not have data regarding the complications and outcomes of our patients possibly related to PPI use. We cannot follow up with patients, given the fact that we do not have a national medical electronic database, and our patients are free to consult any other hospital in the city or county. The absence of data on local prescribing patterns is a limitation of our study. Indeed, there are no specific national or local guidelines available for prescribing PPIs, especially for patients with liver cirrhosis. PPI overprescription among cirrhotic patients within our institution raises concerns about the potential adverse effects and unnecessary healthcare costs. Our institution should address the overuse of PPIs through several initiatives, like revising clinical guidelines, implementing educational programs for healthcare providers, and establishing a monitoring system to ensure adherence to best practices. These measures are intended to optimize PPI prescribing and enhance patient safety.
5. Conclusions
Our study revisits the critical question of PPI prescription practices for cirrhosis patients. It reveals that half of our patients with liver cirrhosis received PPIs during their hospital stay, but more than 40% of PPI prescriptions, either during hospitalization or at discharge, lacked valid indications based on the current guidelines. This aligns with other studies indicating inappropriate PPI usage in similar patient populations. The most frequent invalid indication for PPI prescription was prophylaxis against PHG, both during hospitalization and at discharge. This practice persists despite the lack of evidence supporting PPI effectiveness in preventing UGIB due to PHG. Other frequent invalid indications included the use of corticosteroids or anticoagulants alone, although the guidelines recommend PPI use alongside these medications only for patients at a high risk of GI bleeding due to other risk factors. Our data indicate that there is a PPI overprescription, diverging from the guidelines. Very rarely, there was an under-prescription of PPIs. The most common valid indication for prescribing PPIs was gastritis. While appropriate, this finding highlights the need to differentiate between valid and potentially unnecessary PPI prescriptions. Our study underscores the urgent need to increase awareness among healthcare providers regarding appropriate PPI prescribing practices for patients with liver cirrhosis. This includes strictly adhering to the established guidelines and considering the potential risks associated with PPI use in this patient population, especially regarding increased infection risk. By addressing the knowledge gap identified in this and similar studies, healthcare providers can ensure that PPI prescriptions are reserved for situations where the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
Conceptualization, R.E.S. and T.S.-B.; methodology, S.L.P., D.L.D. and A.I.; software, S.G. and R.E.S.; validation, D.L.D. and S.G.; formal analysis, R.E.S.; investigation, R.E.S.; resources, R.E.S.; data curation, S.L.P.; writing—R.E.S., T.S.-B.; writing—review and editing, T.S.-B., R.E.S., S.L.P. and A.I.; visualization, S.L.P.; supervision, D.L.D.; project administration, T.S.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of “Iuliu Hațieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, No. 44/12 March 2024.
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective study design.
Further information can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Selection of patients with liver cirrhosis and PPI prescriptions during hospital stay and at discharge.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. The prevalence of comorbidities reported in the cohort of cirrhotic patients (n = 189).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. The number of patients with liver cirrhosis who were prescribed PPIs during hospitalization and at discharge.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Reasons for non-valid indication for PPI use. During hospital stays, 45 patients did not have a valid indication, and results are presented as absolute and relative frequency (out of 45 patients). At discharge, there were 26 patients without a valid indication for PPI use; results are presented as absolute and relative frequency (out of 26 patients).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Indications for PPI prescription during hospitalization. The relative frequencies are out of a total of 95 patients who received PPIs during hospital stays; PUD, peptic ulcer disease; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; NSAID, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Indications for PPI prescription at discharge. The relative frequencies are out of a total of 75 patients who received PPIs at discharge. PUD, peptic ulcer disease; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; NSAID, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Baseline patient characteristics.
| Variable | Liver Cirrhosis Patients (N = 189) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, Mean ± SD [Min–Max] | 63.1 ± 9.7 (41–89) | |
| Gender, No. (%) | ||
| Male | 127 (67.2) | |
| Female | 62 (32.8) | |
| Cirrhosis etiology, No. (%) | ||
| Alcohol | 99 (52.4) | |
| Hepatitis C | 32 (16.9) | |
| Combined causes | 16 (8.5) | |
| Cryptogenic | 14 (7.4) | |
| Autoimmune | 12 (6.4) | |
| Primary biliary cholangitis | 9 (4.8) | |
| Hepatitis B | 6 (3.2) | |
| Drug-induced | 1 (0.5) | |
| Child–Pugh Class, No. (%) | ||
| A | 79 (41.8) | |
| B | 71 (37.6) | |
| C | 31 (16.4) | |
| Unknown | 8 (4.2) | |
Complications of liver cirrhosis in the study group (n = 189).
| Complications of Liver Cirrhosis | No. (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascites | ||||
| Absent/mild | 136 (72) | |||
| Moderate | 22 (11.6) | |||
| Severe | 31 (16.4) | |||
| Hepatic encephalopathy | ||||
| Absent | 158 (82.5) | |||
| Mild/moderate (Stage I–II) | 26 (14.8) | |||
| Severe (Stage III–IV) | 5 (2.7) | |||
| Esophageal varices | ||||
| Yes | 104 (55) | |||
| Grade I | 36 (19.1) | |||
| Grade II | 57 (30.1) | |||
| Grade III | 8 (4.2) | |||
| Unknown | 3 (1.6) | |||
| No | 27 (14.3) | |||
| Gastroscopy not performed | 58 (30.7) | |||
| Renal failure | 29 (15.3) | |||
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | ||||
| No | 177 (93.6) | |||
| Yes | 6 (3.2) | |||
| Possible (uncharacterized nodule) | 6 (3.2) | |||
| Upper gastrointestinal bleeding | 9 (4.8) | |||
| Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis | 1 (0.5) | |||
References
1. Baumgartner, K.; Cooper, J.; Smith, A.; St Louis, J. Liver Disease: Cirrhosis. FP Essent.; 2021; 511, pp. 36-43. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34855340]
2. Ginès, P.; Krag, A.; Abraldes, J.G.; Solà, E.; Fabrellas, N.; Kamath, P.S. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet; 2021; 398, pp. 1359-1376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01374-X] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34543610]
3. Hsiang, J.C.; Gane, E.J.; Bai, W.W.; Gerred, S.J. Type 2 diabetes: A risk factor for liver mortality and complications in hepatitis B cirrhosis patients. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.; 2015; 30, pp. 591-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12790]
4. Wang, T.; Huang, S.; Wu, C.; Wang, N.; Zhang, R.; Wang, M.; Mao, D. Intestinal Microbiota and Liver Diseases: Insights into Therapeutic Use of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med.; 2021; 2021, 6682581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6682581]
5. Prescribing PPIs. Drug Ther. Bull.; 2017; 55, pp. 117-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/dtb.2017.10.0541] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29021249]
6. Brandl, K.; Schnabl, B. Is intestinal inflammation linking dysbiosis to gut barrier dysfunction during liver disease?. Expert. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.; 2015; 9, pp. 1069-1076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1586/17474124.2015.1057122]
7. Lambert, A.A.; Lam, J.O.; Paik, J.J.; Ugarte-Gil, C.; Drummond, M.B.; Crowell, T.A. Risk of Community-Acquired Pneumonia with Outpatient Proton-Pump Inhibitor Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0128004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128004]
8. Goel, G.A.; Deshpande, A.; Lopez, R.; Hall, G.S.; van Duin, D.; Carey, W.D. Increased rate of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis among cirrhotic patients receiving pharmacologic acid suppression. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Off. Clin. Pract. J. Am. Gastroenterol. Assoc.; 2012; 10, pp. 422-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.019]
9. Hwang, S.J.; Lee, D.H.; Koh, S.J.; Kim, J.W.; Park, H.S.; Kim, B.G.; Lee, K.L. Correlation Between Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Complications of Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Turk. J. Gastroenterol.; 2022; 33, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2022.20689]
10. De Roza, M.A.; Kai, L.; Kam, J.W.; Chan, Y.H.; Kwek, A.; Ang, T.L.; Hsiang, J.C. Proton pump inhibitor use increases mortality and hepatic decompensation in liver cirrhosis. World J. Gastroenterol.; 2019; 25, pp. 4933-4944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i33.4933]
11. Chinzon, D.; Domingues, G.; Tosetto, N.; Perrotti, M. Safety of Long-Term Proton Pump Inhibitors: Facts and Myths. Arq. Gastroenterol.; 2022; 59, pp. 219-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.202202000-40] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35830032]
12. Sakata, Y.; Tsuruoka, N.; Takedomi, H.; Akutagawa, T.; Shimoda, R.; Esaki, M.; Fujimoto, K. A Study on the Status of Proton Pump Inhibitor Prescriptions Using Diagnosis Procedure Combination Data in Japan. Digestion; 2020; 101, pp. 308-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000498967] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30840949]
13. Cole, H.L.; Pennycook, S.; Hayes, P.C. The impact of proton pump inhibitor therapy on patients with liver disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2016; 44, pp. 1213-1223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.13827] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774677]
14. Scarpignato, C.; Gatta, L.; Zullo, A.; Blandizzi, C. Effective and safe proton pump inhibitor therapy in acid-related diseases—A position paper addressing benefits and potential harms of acid suppression. BMC Med.; 2016; 14, 179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825371]
15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease and Dyspepsia in Adults: Investigation and Management; NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 184 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): London, UK, 2019.
16. Lanza, F.L.; Chan, F.K.L.; Quigley, E.M.M. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Guidelines for prevention of NSAID-related ulcer complications. Am. J. Gastroenterol.; 2009; 104, pp. 728-738.
17. Freedberg, D.E.; Kim, L.S.; Yang, Y.-X. The Risks and Benefits of Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review and Best Practice Advice From the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology; 2017; 152, pp. 706-715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031]
18. Chia, C.T.W.; Lim, W.P.; Vu, C.K.F. Inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in a local setting. Singap. Med. J.; 2014; 55, pp. 363-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2014087]
19. Gamelas, V.; Salvado, V.; Dias, L. Prescription Pattern of Proton Pump Inhibitors at Hospital Admission and Discharge. GE Port. J. Gastroenterol.; 2019; 26, pp. 114-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000488506]
20. Dultz, G.; Piiper, A.; Zeuzem, S.; Kronenberger, B.; Waidmann, O. Proton pump inhibitor treatment is associated with the severity of liver disease and increased mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2015; 41, pp. 459-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.13061]
21. Dutta, A.K.; Sharma, V.; Jain, A.; Elhence, A.; Panigrahi, M.K.; Mohta, S.; Kirubakaran, R.; Philip, M.; Goenka, M.; Bhatia, S. et al. Inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in clinical practice globally: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332154]
22. García Rodríguez, L.A.; Lanas, A.; Soriano-Gabarró, M.; Vora, P.; Cea Soriano, L. Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Risks of Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding among Users of Low-Dose Aspirin: A Population-Based Observational Study. J. Clin. Med.; 2020; 9, 928. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040928]
23. Lodato, F.; Azzaroli, F.; Girolamo, M.D.; Feletti, V.; Cecinato, P.; Lisotti, A.; Festi, D.; Roda, E.; Mazzella, G. Proton pump inhibitors in cirrhosis: Tradition or evidence based practice?. World J. Gastroenterol.; 2008; 14, pp. 2980-2985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.2980] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18494046]
24. Savarino, V.; Mela, G.S.; Zentilin, P.; Mansi, C.; Mele, M.R.; Vigneri, S.; Cutela, P.; Vassallo, A.; Dallorto, E.; Celle, G. Evaluation of 24-hour gastric acidity in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. J. Hepatol.; 1996; 25, pp. 152-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8278(96)80067-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8878775]
25. Garcia-Saenz-de-Sicilia, M.; Sanchez-Avila, F.; Chavez-Tapia, N.-C.; Lopez-Arce, G.; Garcia-Osogobio, S.; Ruiz-Cordero, R.; Tellez-Avila, F.-I. PPIs are not associated with a lower incidence of portal-hypertension-related bleeding in cirrhosis. World J. Gastroenterol.; 2010; 16, pp. 5869-5873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i46.5869] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155009]
26. Fraser, A.G.; Pounder, R.E.; Burroughs, A.K. Gastric secretion and peptic ulceration in cirrhosis. J. Hepatol.; 1993; 19, pp. 171-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8278(05)80191-6]
27. Ostrow, J.D.; Timmerman, R.J.; Gray, S.J. Gastric Secretion in Human Hepatic Cirrhosis. Gastroenterology; 1960; 38, pp. 303-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(60)80132-1]
28. Bajaj, J.S.; Cox, I.J.; Betrapally, N.S.; Heuman, D.M.; Schubert, M.L.; Ratneswaran, M.; Hylemon, P.B.; White, M.B.; Daita, K.; Noble, N.A. et al. Systems biology analysis of omeprazole therapy in cirrhosis demonstrates significant shifts in gut microbiota composition and function. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.; 2014; 307, pp. G951-G957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00268.2014]
29. Qi, X.; Su, C.; Ren, W.; Yang, M.; Jia, J.; Dai, J.; Xu, W.; Guo, X. Association between portal vein thrombosis and risk of bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A systematic review of the literature. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol.; 2015; 39, pp. 683-691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinre.2015.02.012]
30. Flores, B.; Trivedi, H.D.; Robson, S.C.; Bonder, A. Hemostasis, bleeding and thrombosis in liver disease. J. Transl. Sci.; 2017; 3, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15761/JTS.1000182]
31. Serper, M.; Weinberg, E.M.; Cohen, J.B.; Reese, P.P.; Taddei, T.H.; Kaplan, D.E. Mortality and Hepatic Decompensation in Patients With Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Anticoagulation. Hepatol. Baltim. Md.; 2021; 73, pp. 219-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.31264]
32. Ma, J.; Chalasani, N.P.; Schwantes-An, L.; Björnsson, E.S. Review article: The safety of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2023; 57, pp. 52-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.17297]
33. Cui, S.-B.; Shu, R.-H.; Yan, S.-P.; Wu, H.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhu, Q. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation therapy with different doses of enoxaparin for portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with hepatitis B. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.; 2015; 27, pp. 914-919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000351]
34. Lee, S.R.; Kwon, S.; Choi, E.-K.; Jung, J.-H.; Han, K.-D.; Oh, S.; Lip, G.Y.H. Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Oral Anticoagulants and a Prior History of Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Bleeding. Cardiovasc. Drugs Ther.; 2022; 36, pp. 679-689. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10557-021-07170-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33730289]
35. Butler, E.; Møller, M.H.; Cook, O.; Granholm, A.; Penketh, J.; Rygård, S.L.; Aneman, A.; Perner, A. The effect of systemic corticosteroids on the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med.; 2019; 45, pp. 1540-1549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05754-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31501997]
36. Narum, S.; Westergren, T.; Klemp, M. Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open; 2014; 4, e004587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004587] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833682]
37. Conn, H.O.; Poynard, T. Corticosteroids and peptic ulcer: Meta-analysis of adverse events during steroid therapy. J. Intern. Med.; 1994; 236, pp. 619-632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.1994.tb00855.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7989897]
38. Li, H.; Li, N.; Jia, X.; Zhai, Y.; Xue, X.; Qiao, Y. Appropriateness and Associated Factors of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis for Surgical Inpatients of Orthopedics Department in a Tertiary Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Pharmacol.; 2022; 13, 881063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.881063]
39. Thurber, K.M.; O Otto, A.; Stricker, S.L. Proton pump inhibitors: Understanding the associated risks and benefits of long-term use. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. AJHP Off. J. Am. Soc. Health-Syst. Pharm.; 2023; 80, pp. 487-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxad009]
40. Mahmud, N.; Serper, M.; Taddei, T.H.; Kaplan, D.E. The Association Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Exposure and Key Liver-Related Outcomes in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Veterans Affairs Cohort Study. Gastroenterology; 2022; 163, pp. 257-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.052]
41. Cacciola, I. Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Cirrhotic Patients: What Do We Really Know?. Gastroenterology; 2022; 163, pp. 47-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.039]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Popa, Stefan Lucian 2
; Grad, Simona 2
; Dumitrascu, Dan Lucian 2 ; Ismaiel, Abdulrahman 2
; Surdea-Blaga, Teodora 2
1 Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400000 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
2 Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400000 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;