Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41324956›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Pantoprazole to Prevent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

Feng Xie, Yifan Yao, Yue Ma, Brittany Humphries, Vincent I Lau, Robert Fowler, Bram Rochwerg, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Nicole Zytaruk, Jeffrey F Barletta and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Yifan YaoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Yue MaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Brittany HumphriesDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Vincent I LauDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Robert FowlerInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bram RochwergDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Diane Heels-AnsdellDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Nicole ZytarukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey F BarlettaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Midwestern University, College of Pharmacy-Glendale Campus, Glendale, Arizona.
Salmaan KanjiThe Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Yaseen M ArabiKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Daniel W JohnsonCritical Care Division, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
David WilliamsonFaculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Sacré-Coeur Hospital in Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
John C MarshallInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adam DeaneUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
John MyburghThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna GeageaDepartment of Critical Care, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alex PooleUniversity of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Patrick ArchambaultUniversité Laval, Québec City, Quebec, Canada.
Kosar KhwajaDepartments of Critical Care and Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Marlies OstermannGuys' and St Thomas Hospital, London, England.
Lisa BurryInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Deborah J CookDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
E-REVISE Collaborators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pantoprazole reduces clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unclear. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of daily intravenous pantoprazole vs no pantoprazole for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective health economic evaluation was conducted alongside the Reevaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) trial over a time horizon of intensive care unit (ICU) admission to hospital discharge or death from a public health care payer's perspective. The REVISE trial included critically ill adults from Canada, Australia, the US, England, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Kuwait, and Pakistan receiving invasive ventilation. Interventions: Daily intravenous pantoprazole (40 mg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost per clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleed prevented. The base-case analysis included all study site-specific resource utilization. Canadian costs were applied to measured resource uses across sites. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across cost ranges and using US-based cost estimates. Uncertainty was assessed using nonparametric bootstrapping simulations. All costs are presented in 2025 US dollars. Results: 4821 invasively ventilated critically ill patients (mean [SD] age, 58.2 [16.4] years; 1752 female [36.3%]) were enrolled from 68 ICUs. For pantoprazole, the mean (SD) stay was 12.4 (11.7) days in the ICU and an additional 14.8 (28.0) days in the hospital, as compared with 13.3 (13.3) days in the ICU and 16.5 (42.9) days in the hospital for no pantoprazole. Mean (SD) total per-patient costs were $60 466 ($58 546) for pantoprazole vs $65 423 ($75 661) for no pantoprazole. The incremental cost per patient was -$4957 (95% CI, -$8777 to -$1136). In a sensitivity analysis, US costs were applied for pantoprazole, bleeding, and ICU and hospital stay to all patients; mean (SD) total per-patient costs were $130 179 ($123 456) for pantoprazole vs $140 770 ($153 195) for no pantoprazole (incremental cost: -$10 591; 95% CI, -$18 448 to $-2735). When excluding top 10% of patients in terms of ICU days, ward days, and total costs, the incremental costs were -$1151, -$3388, and -$1356, respectively. In 99% of simulations, the strategy of using pantoprazole was more effective and less costly than no pantoprazole. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, daily pantoprazole for invasively mechanically ventilated patients was less costly and more effective than care without pantoprazole, indicating both clinical benefits and economic value for the health care system.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal HemorrhagePantoprazoleProton Pump InhibitorsRespiration, ArtificialAdultAgedCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisCritical IllnessFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPantoprazoleProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID41324956
PMCPMC12670189

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.