G. Eslami, Elahe Karimpour Razkenar, Yahya Sharifi, A. Soleimani, E. Salehifar, Parastoo Karimi Aliabadi
{"title":"Clinical Characteristics of Intravenous Pantoprazole Consumption in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit","authors":"G. Eslami, Elahe Karimpour Razkenar, Yahya Sharifi, A. Soleimani, E. Salehifar, Parastoo Karimi Aliabadi","doi":"10.18502/pbr.v7i3.7699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) are the most common medicine for the treatment and prophylaxis of acid peptic conditions. The inappropriate use of the PPIs, mainly the intravenous form of pantoprazole may lead to excessive cost and unexpected adverse effects. \nObjectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the use of intravenous pantoprazole in the International Heart Center in the north of Iran. \nMethods: The current retrospective study was performed on 215 patients hospitalized in Fatemeh Zahra Hospital in Sari City, Iran. Patients’ demographics, the type and doses of pantoprazole, and other relevant clinical data were recorded from their documentation. The appropriate use of pantoprazole was evaluated according to recommendations provided by Medscape 2020, and UpToDate 2020. \nResults: Prescribing PPI was appropriate for 53.5% of the examined patients; however, the majority of intravenous prescription cases were inappropriate (76.7%). Oral PPIs could have been used in 93.5% of the cases; however, they received the parenteral form of pantoprazole. The main cause of pantoprazole prescription in the explored hospital was stress ulcer prophylaxis, with the median 4/18 days used, which internal specialists in most of the cases (45.6%) prescribed. \nConclusion: In the current study, administrating intravenous pantoprazole was inappropriate in most of the cases. As a result of this improper administration, the extensive cost is exposed to the healthcare system, i.e., likely to be unsafe for patients. Accordingly, risk and indication evaluation for the prescription of pantoprazole should be a priority in each patient. Finally, it seems necessary to determine a protocol for PPI prescription per hospital for the rational use of drugs. ","PeriodicalId":6323,"journal":{"name":"2005 Asian Conference on Sensors and the International Conference on New Techniques in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2005 Asian Conference on Sensors and the International Conference on New Techniques in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/pbr.v7i3.7699","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) are the most common medicine for the treatment and prophylaxis of acid peptic conditions. The inappropriate use of the PPIs, mainly the intravenous form of pantoprazole may lead to excessive cost and unexpected adverse effects.
Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the use of intravenous pantoprazole in the International Heart Center in the north of Iran.
Methods: The current retrospective study was performed on 215 patients hospitalized in Fatemeh Zahra Hospital in Sari City, Iran. Patients’ demographics, the type and doses of pantoprazole, and other relevant clinical data were recorded from their documentation. The appropriate use of pantoprazole was evaluated according to recommendations provided by Medscape 2020, and UpToDate 2020.
Results: Prescribing PPI was appropriate for 53.5% of the examined patients; however, the majority of intravenous prescription cases were inappropriate (76.7%). Oral PPIs could have been used in 93.5% of the cases; however, they received the parenteral form of pantoprazole. The main cause of pantoprazole prescription in the explored hospital was stress ulcer prophylaxis, with the median 4/18 days used, which internal specialists in most of the cases (45.6%) prescribed.
Conclusion: In the current study, administrating intravenous pantoprazole was inappropriate in most of the cases. As a result of this improper administration, the extensive cost is exposed to the healthcare system, i.e., likely to be unsafe for patients. Accordingly, risk and indication evaluation for the prescription of pantoprazole should be a priority in each patient. Finally, it seems necessary to determine a protocol for PPI prescription per hospital for the rational use of drugs.