0.5 mg/kg versus 1 mg/kg of intravenous omeprazole for the prophylaxis of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill children: a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of 2 doses of intravenous omeprazole on gastric pH, gastrointestinal bleeding, and adverse effects in critically ill children. STUDY DESIGN: We undertook a prospective randomized clinical trial in critically ill children at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The effect of 2 intravenous omeprazole regimens (0.5 or 1 mg/kg every 12 hours) on the gastric pH and incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was compared. The efficacy criteria were a gastric pH >4 and the absence of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding. RESULTS: Forty patients, 20 in each treatment group, were studied. Overall, the gastric pH was greater than 4 for 57.8% of the time, with no difference between the doses (P = .66). The percentage of time with a gastric pH > 4 increased during the study (47.8% between 0 and 24 hours vs 76% between 24 and 48 hours, P = .001); the greater dose showed a greater increase in the percentage of time with a pH > 4: between hours 24 and 48 of the study, the gastric pH was greater than 4 for 84.5% of the time with the 1 mg/kg dose and for 65.5% of the time with the 0.5 mg/kg dose (P = .036). Plasma omeprazole levels were greater with 1 mg/kg dose, but no correlation was found between omeprazole plasma levels and gastric pH. No toxic adverse effects were detected, and there was no clinically significant bleeding. CONCLUSION: Neither of the 2 omeprazole regimens achieved adequate alkalinization of the gastric pH during the first 24 hours. Between 24 and 48 hours, the 1 mg/kg dose maintained the gastric pH greater than 4 for a greater percentage of the time.

Enteral nutrition in the critically ill child: comparison of standard and protein-enriched diets.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a standard diet and a protein-enriched diet in critically ill children. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective randomized controlled trial in critically ill children, all patients received enteral nutrition exclusively and were randomly assigned to a standard diet or a protein-enriched diet (1.1 g protein/100 mL of feeding formula). Blood and urine tests, nitrogen balance assessment, and energy expenditure testing by indirect calorimetry were performed before the beginning of the nutrition regimen and at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days after initiation. Demographic data and pediatric mortality risk scores were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-one children were randomized, and 41 completed the study. Of these, 21 patients received standard formula and 20 received a protein-enriched formula. There were no between-group differences in terms age, sex, diagnosis, or mortality risk scores. There was a greater positive trend in levels of prealbumin, transferrin, retinol-binding protein, and total protein in the protein-enriched diet group. These differences were significant only for retinol-binding protein. The positive nitrogen balance trend was also higher in the protein-enriched diet group; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. No adverse effects or hyperproteinemia were detected in the protein-enriched diet group. CONCLUSIONS: The standard diet provides insufficient protein delivery to critically ill children. Enteral protein supplementation is safe and can improve some biochemical parameters of protein metabolism.