Urgent bedside endoscopy for clinically significant upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage after admission to the intensive care unit

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study

BACKGROUND

Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.

Clinical impact of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in critically ill patients with suspected bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopies' (UGE) profitability is undisputable in patients admitted for an overt upper digestive tract bleeding. In critically ill subjects admitted for other causes, its performances have scarcely been investigated despite its broad use. We sought to question the performance of bedside UGE in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, admitted for another reason than overt bleeding.

METHODS

This was a six-year (January 2007-December 2012) retrospective observational study of all UGE performed in a medico-surgical ICU. Exclusion of those performed: in patients admitted for a patent upper digestive bleeding; for a second-look gastroscopy of a known lesion; as a planned interventional procedure. Main demographic and clinical data were recorded; UGE indication and profitability were rated according to its findings and therapeutic impact. Operative values of the indications of UGE were calculated. This study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the French Society of Intensive Care (n° 12-363).

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (74% male, mean age 61 ± 14 years) underwent a diagnostic UGE, all for a suspected upper digestive tract bleeding. The main symptoms justifying the procedure were anemia (52%), digestive bleeding (27%), vomiting (15%), hemodynamic instability (3%) and hyperuremia (3%). The profitability of UGE was rated as major (n = 5; 5.8%); minor (n = 34; 40.5%); or null (n = 45; 53.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

When ICU admission is not warranted by a digestive bleeding, UGE has limited diagnostic and therapeutic interest, despite being often performed.

Early versus late bedside endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a life-threatening complication in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of bedside endoscopy in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, and to compare the outcomes of early endoscopy (within 24 hours of detecting GI bleeding) with late endoscopy (after 24 hours).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent bedside endoscopy for nonvariceal upper GI bleeding and lower GI bleeding that occurred after ICU admission at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2010 to May 2015.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-three patients underwent bedside esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for upper GI bleeding (early, 187; late, 66) and 69 underwent bedside colonoscopy (CS) for lower GI bleeding (early, 36; late, 33). Common endoscopic findings were peptic ulcer, and acute gastric mucosal lesion in the EGD group, as well as ischemic colitis and acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcers in the CS group. Early EGD significantly increased the rate of finding the bleeding focus (82% vs. 73%, p = 0.003) and endoscopic hemostasis (32% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) compared with late EGD. However, early CS significantly decreased the rate of identifying the bleeding focus (58% vs. 82%, p = 0.008) and hemostasis (19% vs. 49%, p = 0.011) compared with late CS due to its higher rate of poor bowel preparation and blood interference (38.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Early EGD may be effective for diagnosis and hemostatic treatment in ICU patients with GI bleeding. However, early CS should be carefully performed after adequate bowel preparation.

The Relationship between the Time of Endoscopy and Morbidity and Mortality Rates in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background:

This study was done to evaluate the relationship between the time of endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding with morbidity and mortality rates of patients at the Al Zahra Hospital emergency room.

Materials and Methods:

In a cohort study, 1152 patients at 2014 and 2015 have been hospitalized due to gastrointestinal bleeding in Al Zahra Hospital, were selected and demographic and clinical information and day and time of endoscopy and hospital mortality and fewer deaths than a month after discharge were studied, and prognosis was analyzed in terms of day and time of endoscopy.

Results:

Nine hundred and seventy-three cases (84.5%) of endoscopy were performed during the working days and 179 (15.5%) were performed on holidays. Moreover, 801 cases (69.5%) of endoscopy were done in the morning and 351 cases (30.5%) were performed in the evening and night shifts. The day and time of endoscopy had no significant effect on mortality in hospital and less than a month after but hospital death in whom underwent endoscopy by fellowship was significantly higher (P = 0.004).

Conclusion:

Endoscopy in nonholiday and holiday days and the time of endoscopy has no significant effect on hospital mortality 1 month after discharge. However, other factors such as endoscopy by attendant or fellowship, time between admission to endoscopy, age and sex of the patients, etc., were significantly effective on in-hospital mortality and death 1 months after discharge. Also faster and sooner endoscopy cannot reduce rate of blood transfusions or reduce the length of hospital stay but faster endoscopy of patients can reduce the risk of in-hospital death.

Diagnostic bedside EUS in the intensive care unit: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of bedside diagnostic EUS in critically ill patients is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the indications, feasibility, safety, and clinical utility of diagnostic EUS in the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients who had EUS done in the ICU within a 6-year period.

INTERVENTION

Bedside EUS and EUS-guided FNA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

EUS indications, complications, and impact on management.

RESULTS

A total of 64 EUS procedures were performed in 63 patients (38 men, 25 women; age range 27-78 years); 1 patient underwent 2 separate EUS procedures. EUS was performed while the patients were mechanically ventilated in 70% (45/64) of cases. Indications for EUS included jaundice (n = 24), mass of unknown etiology (n = 25), unexplained pancreatitis (n = 7), and staging of known cancer (n = 3). In 5 cases, EUS was used as an alternative to other imaging modalities because of morbid obesity (n = 3) or contraindication to intravenous contrast material (n = 2). Complications included reversible oxygen desaturation (n = 4), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), and transient hypotension (n = 1). Overall, EUS influenced management in 97% (62/64) of cases.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, single-center study.

CONCLUSION

ICU-based EUS can be performed with few intraprocedural complications and can be a valuable diagnostic modality in the ICU setting. It appears to be particularly useful for determining the etiology of jaundice, masses of unknown etiology, and pancreatitis. It may have particular value as a diagnostic technique on selected patients with unstaged cancer and when morbid obesity or the inability to use intravenous contrast material precludes the use of other imaging modalities in the critically ill patient.

Prospective survey for the etiology and outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding: a community based study in southern Taiwan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Helicobacter pylori infection and drugs are the two major risk factors for peptic ulcer bleeding. The role of these two factors may change with changes in the prevalence of H pylori and use of NSAIDs. This study aimed to determine the cause, endoscopic features, and outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding in a community hospital in southern Taiwan.

METHODS

Patients who received esophagogastroduodenoscopy on arrival at the emergency department and were found to have actively bleeding ulcers or ulcers with stigmata of recent hemorrhage were included. H pylori infection was documented by the rapid urease test, histology, and/or C-13 urease breath test. Medication history, comorbidities, requirement for endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion, hospitalization days, and rebleeding rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 64.8 ± 15.2 years, with 58.3% of the subjects being female. There were 62 patients (30.4%) with H pylori infection only, 40 patients (19.6%) with drug use only, 67 patients (32.8%) with H pylori infection and drug use, and 37 patients (17.2%) without H pylori or drug use. A total of 107 patients (52.5%) were found to have had drug exposure. Drug exposure had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.34 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.30-4.20] for gastric ulcer bleeding and H pylori had an OR of 2.64 (95% CI = 1.17-5.97) for combined gastric and duodenal ulcer bleeding. The mean hospitalization period was 5.7 ± 4.0 days and the overall re-bleeding rate was 4.0%. The H pylori negative and drug negative subjects needed more endoscopic therapy (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Drug use, especially NSAIDs, aspirin, and clopidogrel has become an important cause of peptic ulcer bleeding in southern Taiwan.

The concept of bedside EUS

BACKGROUND

Although the role of bedside endoscopy for the provision of emergent diagnosis and therapy is well known, the concept of bedside EUS requires further validation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the concept of bedside EUS and assess its impact on patient management.

DESIGN

A prospective study.

SETTING

A tertiary-referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients included those with pancreaticobiliary and thoracic disorders who required EUS but who were clinically unstable to be evaluated in the endoscopy suite.

INTERVENTIONS

All procedures were performed by one endosonographer at the patient's bedside by using an EUS cart that was equipped with a therapeutic curvilinear echoendoscope.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and impact of bedside EUS in the clinical management of patients. EUS was considered to have a significant impact if a new diagnosis was established and/or if the findings altered subsequent management.

RESULTS

Within a 3-month period, 6 patients (4 men; median age 56 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV) were evaluated in the intensive care unit by using the mobile EUS cart. Procedural indications were the following: drainage of symptomatic pseudocyst (n = 2), evaluate the cause of cholangitis (n = 2), diagnose and treat a suspected postoperative (distal esophagectomy) fluid collection (n = 1), and provide tissue diagnosis in one patient with a pancreatic-head mass, who presented with intrahepatic bleeding. The procedure was technically successful in all 6 patients (100%), and no complications were encountered. Bedside EUS established a diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (n = 1), mediastinal abscess (n = 1), and pancreatic abscess (n = 1) in 3 patients, and ruled out the presence of choledocholithiasis (n = 1) and pancreatic pseudocyst (n = 1) in 2 other patients. Also, by using bedside EUS, transmural drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst and mediastinal abscess was successfully undertaken in 2 patients. Bedside EUS had an impact on management in all 6 patients (100%): established a new diagnosis (n = 3), precluded the need for an ERCP and/or other interventions (n = 2), and enabled focused endotherapy (n = 3).

LIMITATIONS

Small number of patients; a single endosonographer.

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside EUS is technically feasible, safe, facilitates both diagnosis and therapy, and enables the clinical management of patients who are critically ill.

Therapy insight: Prophylaxis of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients

Stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Within the past few decades, the incidence of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding has decreased. Prophylaxis of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding, which is aimed at preventing morbidity and mortality, has to be achieved with as few adverse effects as possible. Data indicate that not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis for stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding. The main risk factors associated with clinically important hemorrhage are mechanical ventilation for >48 h, and coagulopathy (thrombocyte count <50/nl, partial thromboplastin time (PTT) >2 times the upper limit of the normal range, international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5). Ranitidine is more effective than sucralfate for the prevention of clinically important bleeding. Immediate-release omeprazole is as effective as cimetidine, and is more efficient at increasing the intragastric pH. As yet, however, there is no firm evidence that any of the drugs used for prophylaxis of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients decrease mortality or the length of hospital stay. When to stop prophylaxis is decided on clinical grounds rather than on the basis of data from clinical studies.

High-risk ED patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage undergoing emergency or urgent endoscopy: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

The optimal timing of interventional endoscopy within the initial 24 hours remains controversial. We designed a retrospective study to compare the outcomes between emergency endoscopy (EE) and urgent endoscopy (UE) for high-risk patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The medical records of 189 patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage who underwent endoscopy within 24 hours of admission to the ED were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: EE group (<8 hours) or UE group (8-24 hours). We compared the endoscopic findings, hemostatic procedures, rate of hemostasis, rebleeding, need for transfusion, length of hospitalization, and mortality between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 88 patients (47%) in the EE group and 101 patients (53%) in the UE group. Ulcers with active bleeding or exposed vessel were found more frequently in the EE group than in the UE group (19% vs 8%, P = .03; 34% vs 12%, P < .001). Fifty patients had blood retention in the stomach, especially in the EE group (40% vs 15%, P < .001). Forty-four (50%) patients in the EE group and 21 (21%) patients in the UE group received endoscopic interventions. Combination modalities of endoscopic hemostasis were more commonly used in the EE group than in the UE group (40% vs 15%, P < .001). Primary hemostasis was achieved at a rate of 95% in both groups. There was no statistical difference regarding the rate of recurrent bleeding, total amount of transfusion, length of hospital stay, and mortality rate in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more active lesions were detected and more therapeutic attempts were performed in the EE group, the outcome showed no difference in both groups. Emergency endoscopy performed less than 8 hours after arrival to the ED showed no definite benefit in comparison with UE performed within 8 to 24 hours.

Bedside colonoscopy for critically ill patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical impact of bedside colonoscopy for critically ill patients with acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A 3-year retrospective analysis (chart review). Medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a 1,312-bed tertiary-care center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-five people undergoing bedside colonoscopy for lower GI bleeding that developed while in the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

Bedside colonoscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Colonoscopy was successful in diagnosing the source of bleeding in 37 patients. Among them, colitis (15 patients, including ischemic, pseudomembranous, or radiation-induced) and acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcer (nine patients) were the most frequent confirmed causes. In seven patients, fresh blood was noticed above the colonoscopically accessible area and considered to originate from the small bowel. No adverse event was associated with colonoscopy. Spontaneous cessation of bleeding was noted in 29 (29/55, 53%) patients, whereas 16 (16/55, 29%) achieved endoscopic hemostasis. Ten (10/55, 18%) patients failed primary hemostasis or localization. Overall in-hospital mortality was 53% (29/55); however, hemorrhage-related death occurred in only two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU patients with acute lower GI bleeding have distinctive causes. Bedside colonoscopy is effective for diagnosis in two-thirds of patients, but only a minority of them needs endoscopic hemostasis.