Ppi vs h2 blockers
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
Comparative Analysis of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) vs. Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers (H2RBs)
Introduction to PPIs and H2RBs in Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) are commonly used for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients, particularly those in intensive care units (ICUs). Both classes of drugs aim to reduce gastric acid secretion, but they differ in their mechanisms and potential side effects.
Mortality Rates: PPIs vs. H2RBs
Several studies have investigated the impact of PPIs and H2RBs on mortality rates among ICU patients. The PEPTIC trial, a large cluster crossover randomized clinical trial, found that in-hospital mortality was slightly higher in patients receiving PPIs (18.3%) compared to those receiving H2RBs (17.5%), although this difference was not statistically significant . An updated meta-analysis further supported these findings, suggesting that PPIs might increase mortality compared to H2RBs, with a pooled relative risk of 1.05.
Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Infection Risks
When it comes to preventing clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, PPIs have shown some advantages. The PEPTIC trial reported lower rates of gastrointestinal bleeding in the PPI group (1.3%) compared to the H2RB group (1.8%). However, another study indicated that H2RBs were more effective in reducing the risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGIB) compared to PPIs.
In terms of infection risks, the PEPTIC trial found no significant difference in the rates of Clostridioides difficile infection between the two groups. However, a separate study highlighted that PPIs might increase the risk of pneumonia in acute stroke patients compared to H2RBs.
Long-term Risks: Dementia, Mortality, and Kidney Disease
Long-term use of PPIs has been associated with several adverse outcomes. A meta-analysis examining the risk of dementia found no significant difference between PPI users and non-users, nor between H2RB users and non-users. However, a longitudinal cohort study of US veterans indicated that PPI use was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to H2RBs . This study also found that the risk of death was higher among PPI users without gastrointestinal conditions and increased with prolonged use.
Additionally, PPI use has been linked to an increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A study using Department of Veterans Affairs databases found that PPI users had a higher risk of incident CKD and ESRD compared to H2RB users.
Conclusion
In summary, while PPIs may offer some benefits in reducing gastrointestinal bleeding, they are associated with higher mortality rates, increased risks of pneumonia, and potential long-term adverse effects such as chronic kidney disease and increased mortality. H2RBs, on the other hand, appear to be safer in terms of mortality and long-term risks but may be less effective in preventing gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinicians should carefully consider these factors when choosing between PPIs and H2RBs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic