Prognosis of variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in already hospitalised patients: Results from a French prospective cohort

Sepsis as a Potential Risk Factor for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose: Sepsis is a common and critical condition in intensive care units (ICUs) known to complicate patient outcomes. Previous studies have indicated an association between sepsis and various ICU morbidities, including upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, the extent of this relationship and its implications in ICU settings remain inadequately quantified. This study aims to elucidate the association between sepsis and the risk of UGIB in ICU patients. Methods: A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, encompassing nine studies with a total of nearly 9000 participants. These studies reported events for both sepsis and nonsepsis patients separately. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of UGIB in septic versus nonseptic ICU patients. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age and study design, and both unadjusted and adjusted ORs were examined. Results: The pooled OR indicated a significant association between sepsis and UGIB (OR = 3.276, 95% CI: 1.931 to 5.557). Moderate heterogeneity was observed (I² = 43.9%). The association was significant in adults (pooled OR = 4.083) but not in children. No difference in association was found based on the study design. Unadjusted and adjusted ORs differed slightly, indicating the influence of confounding factors. Conclusion: This meta-analysis reveals a significant association between sepsis and an increased risk of UGIB in ICU patients, particularly in adults. These findings highlight the need for vigilant monitoring and proactive management of septic ICU patients to mitigate the risk of UGIB. Future research should focus on understanding the underlying mechanisms and developing tailored preventive strategies.

MH-STRALP: A scoring system for prognostication in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency and early assessment of its outcomes is vital for treatment decisions.

AIM

To develop a new scoring system to predict its prognosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 692 patients with UGIB were enrolled from two centers and divided into a training (n = 591) and a validation cohort (n = 101). The clinical data were collected to develop new prognostic prediction models. The endpoint was compound outcome defined as (1) demand for emergency surgery or vascular intervention, (2) being transferred to the intensive care unit, or (3) death during hospitalization. The models' predictive ability was compared with previously established scores by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Totally 22.2% (131/591) patients in the training cohort and 22.8% (23/101) in the validation cohort presented poor outcomes. Based on the stepwise-forward Logistic regression analysis, eight predictors were integrated to determine a new post-endoscopic prognostic scoring system (MH-STRALP); a nomogram was determined to present the model. Compared with the previous scores (GBS, Rockall, ABC, AIMS65, and PNED score), MH-STRALP showed the best prognostic prediction ability with area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) of 0.899 and 0.826 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. According to the calibration curve, decision curve analysis, and internal cross-validation, the nomogram showed good calibration ability and net clinical benefit in both cohorts. After removing the endoscopic indicators, the pre-endoscopic model (pre-MH-STRALP score) was conducted. Similarly, the pre-MH-STRALP score showed better predictive value (AUROCs of 0.868 and 0.767 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively) than the other pre-endoscopic scores.

CONCLUSION

The MH-STRALP score and pre-MH-STRALP score are simple, convenient, and accurate tools for prognosis prediction of UGIB, and may be applied for early decision on its management strategies.

Prognosis of variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in already hospitalised patients: Results from a French prospective cohort

OBJECTIVES

Patients who develop upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) while in hospital appear to have a poor prognosis. Our study aims at analysing the difference in outcome between in-patients (IPs) and out-patients presenting with variceal and non-variceal UGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre prospective study by collecting data about variceal and non-variceal UGIB cases through 46 hospitals in France between November 2017 and October 2018. We then compared baseline demographic features, endoscopic findings and outcome between patients who developed variceal and non-variceal UGIB on admission (OPs) and those at least 24 h after hospitalisation (IPs). Our primary end-point was mortality and re-bleeding rates at 6 weeks of bleeding onset.

RESULTS

A total of 2498 UGIB cases were identified, of whom 634 (25.4%) occurred in IPs. IPs were older than OPs (72.5 vs. 67.2 years old, p < 0.001) and had a higher rate of comorbidities (38.9% vs. 26.6%, p < 0.0001). Their bleeding was more severe with a Rockall score of >5 present in 40.9% (vs. 30.3% in OPs, p < 0.0001). The 6-week mortality rate was significantly higher in IPs when compared to OPs (21.7% vs. 8%, p < 0.0001). Prothrombin time <50% and rebleeding were the only independent predictors of mortality (p = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Six-week rebleeding occurred more frequently among IPs (18.6% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.015) and predictors included female sex, active bleeding upon endoscopy and a Blatchford score >11 (p = 0.017, 0.011 and 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

IPs who develop variceal and non-variceal UGIB are more likely to be elderly with more comorbidities. They have a higher rate of mortality and rebleeding. Independent predictors of mortality were underlying coagulopathy and bleeding recurrence. An optimal bleeding management and efficient rebleeding prevention may improve outcome in these patients.