Evidence Hub

Risk of stroke associated with proton pump inhibitor use among individuals with and without pre-existing cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shabil M, Padhi BK, Khatib MN, Menon SV, Kaur M, Kumari M, Sudan P, Naidu KS et al.

Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025

800,000 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used for managing gastroesophageal disorders but concerns about their potential association with increased stroke risk have emerged, especially among patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the risk of stroke associated with PPI use, stratified by the presence or absence of pre-existing CVD.

Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and included studies up to March 2024 from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were longitudinal, including prospective cohorts, nested case-controls, and post-hoc analyses of RCTs that reported stroke outcomes in relation to PPI use. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis models in R software version 4.3.

Results: Our search yielded 41 studies encompassing over 800,000 participants globally. Meta-analysis of 14 observational studies revealed a slight but non-significant increased stroke risk among patients with prior CVD (pooled HR = 1.222, 95% CI: 0.963 to 1.481, I² = 78%). In contrast, analysis of 15 studies without prior CVD showed a modestly increased risk (pooled HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.023 to 1.288, I² = 98%). Five RCTs involving patients with CVD reported a pooled RR of 1.158 (95% CI: 0.914 to 1.466), indicating no significant risk increase.

Conclusion: The association between PPI use and stroke risk appears modest and is…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 800,000 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free