Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
PPIs for UGIB
Transcript of PPIs for UGIB
2. Blood loss
3. Re-bleeds 1. Daneshmend et al. 1,147 patients. Largest of the 4 studies. Trends towards increased mortality 1.6% mortality difference. Close to 5% increased mortality in the group with confirmed ulcers
2. Hasselgren et al. 330 patients. STOPPED EARLY for harm! 6.9% vs 0.6% mortality
3. Schaffalitzky et al. 265 patients. No mortality benefit. Mild decrease in need for second EGD Context
1. Daneshmend TK, Hawkey CJ, Langman MJ, et al. Omeprazole versus placebo for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ. 1992;304(6820):143-147.
2. Hasselgren G, Lind T, Lundell L, et al. Continuous intravenous infusion of omeprazole in elderly patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Results of a placebo-controlled multicenter study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1997;32(4):328-333.
3. Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB, Havelund T, Harling H, et al. Effect of omeprazole on the outcome of endoscopically treated bleeding peptic ulcers. Randomized double- blind placebo-controlled multicentre study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1997;32(4):320-327. "post hoc hypotheses is analogous to drawing the target around the bullet hole."
"suppose a sample of 1,000 patients is randomly allocated to 2 equally effective treatments, each with a mortality of 10%. If the data are now divided into 10 roughly equivalent subgroups, there is about a 99% chance that at least 1 subgroup will show one treatment to be twice as effective as the other, an 80% chance at least 1 subgroup will show an effect 3 times as large, and a 5% chance that at least 1 subgroup will identify one treatment as 10 times more effective than the other.13"
Wears RL, Cooper RJ, Magid DJ. Subgroups, reanalyses, and other dangerous things. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Sep;46(3):253-5.