Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients in Nile Delta

Outcomes of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis: A National Analysis

GOALS

We sought to evaluate hospital outcomes of cirrhosis patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

BACKGROUND

NVUGIB is common in patients with cirrhosis. However, national outcome studies of these patients are lacking.

STUDY

We utilized the 2014 Nationwide Readmission Database to evaluate NVUGIB in patients with cirrhosis, further stratified as no cirrhosis (NC), compensated cirrhosis (CC), or decompensated cirrhosis (DC). Validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes captured diagnoses and interventions. Outcomes included 30-day readmission rates, index admission mortality rates, health care utilization, and predictors of readmission and mortality using multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,701 patients with cirrhosis were admitted with NVUGIB. The 30-day readmission rate was 20.8%. Patients with CC were more likely to undergo an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) within 1 calendar day of admission (74.1%) than patients with DC (67.9%) or NC (69.4%). Patients with DC had longer hospitalizations (4.1 d) and higher costs of care ($11,834). The index admission mortality rate was higher in patients with DC (6.2%) than in patients with CC (1.7%, P <0.001) or NC (1.4%, P <0.001). Predictors of 30-day readmission included performing an EGD >1 calendar day from admission (OR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.46) and DC (OR: 1.78; 95% CI, 1.54 to 2.06). DC was a predictor of index admission mortality (OR: 3.68; 95% CI, 2.67 to 5.05).

CONCLUSIONS

NVUGIB among patients with DC is associated with higher readmission rates, mortality rates, and health care utilization compared with patients with CC and NC. Early EGD is a modifiable variable associated with reduced readmission rates. Early identification of high-risk patients and adherence to guidelines may improve clinical outcomes.

Practice guidance for the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications

Background

Liver cirrhosis is a major global health burden worldwide due to its high risk of morbidity and mortality. Role of terlipressin for the management of liver cirrhosis-related complications has been recognized during recent years. This article aims to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidance on the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications.

Methods

Hepatobiliary Study Group of the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology of the Chinese Medical Association and Hepatology Committee of the Chinese Research Hospital Association have invited gastroenterologists, hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, surgeons, and clinical pharmacists to formulate the clinical practice guidance based on comprehensive literature review and experts' clinical experiences.

Results

Overall, 10 major guidance statements regarding efficacy and safety of terlipressin in liver cirrhosis were proposed. Terlipressin can be beneficial for the management of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). However, the evidence regarding the use of terlipressin in cirrhotic patients with ascites, post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction, and bacterial infections and in those undergoing hepatic resection and liver transplantation remains insufficient. Terlipressin-related adverse events, mainly including gastrointestinal symptoms, electrolyte disturbance, and cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, should be closely monitored.

Conclusion

The current clinical practice guidance supports the use of terlipressin for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and HRS in liver cirrhosis. High-quality studies are needed to further clarify its potential effects in other liver cirrhosis-related complications.

Endoscopic management and outcome of non-variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute non-variceal bleeding accounts for approximately 20% of all-cause bleeding episodes in patients with liver cirrhosis. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality therefore prompt diagnosis and endoscopic management are crucial.

AIM

To evaluate available data on the efficacy of endoscopic treatment modalities used to control acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in cirrhotic patients as well as to assess treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Employing PRISMA methodology, the MEDLINE was searched through PubMed using appropriate MeSH terms. Data are reported in a summative manner and separately for each major non-variceal cause of bleeding.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 studies were identified with a total of 1288 cirrhotic patients of whom 958/1288 underwent endoscopic therapy for acute non-variceal GIB. Peptic ulcer bleeding was the most common cause of acute non-variceal bleeding, followed by portal hypertensive gastropathy, gastric antral vascular ectasia, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, Dieaulafoy lesions, portal hypertensive colopathy, and hemorrhoids. Failure to control bleeding from all-causes of non-variceal GIB accounted for less than 3.5% of cirrhotic patients. Rebleeding (range 2%-25%) and mortality (range 3%-40%) rates varied, presumably due to study heterogeneity. Rebleeding was usually managed endoscopically and salvage therapy using arterial embolisation or surgery was undertaken in very few cases. Mortality was usually associated with liver function deterioration and other organ failure or infections rather than uncontrolled bleeding. Endoscopic treatment-related complications were extremely rare. Lower acute non-variceal bleeding was examined in two studies (197/1288 patients) achieving initial hemostasis in all patients using argon plasma coagulation for portal hypertensive colopathy and endoscopic band ligation or sclerotherapy for bleeding hemorrhoids (rebleeding range 10%-13%). Data on the efficacy of endoscopic therapy of cirrhotic patients vs non-cirrhotic controls with acute GIB are very scarce.

CONCLUSION

Endotherapy seems to be efficient as a means to control non-variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, although published data are very limited, particularly those comparing cirrhotics with non-cirrhotics and those regarding acute bleeding from the lower gastrointestinal tract. Rebleeding and mortality rates appear to be relatively high, although firm conclusions may not be drawn due to study heterogeneity. Hopefully this review may stimulate further research on this subject and help clinicians administer optimal endoscopic therapy for cirrhotic patients.

Clinical outcomes in cirrhotics with variceal or nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective, multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is associated with a distinct mortality in cirrhotics. We evaluated whether the rate of mortality and other outcomes differs between variceal and nonvariceal UGIB.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, cohort study on UGIB cirrhotics observed in 50 hospitals. Variceal or nonvariceal UGIB were diagnosed at endoscopy. The 6-week mortality rate, need of blood transfusion, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, radiologic or surgical intervention, rebleeding rate, and length of stay in hospital were the main clinical outcomes compared. Data were analyzed at univariate and multivariate analysis, and odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 706 cirrhotics, including 516 (73%) variceal and 190 (27%) nonvariceal UGIB. There were 78 (11%; 95% CI = 8.7-13.4) deceases, without any difference between variceal (11.0%) and nonvariceal (11.0%) groups. Child-Pugh score C (OR: 6.99; 95% CI = 2.58-18.95), and development of either hepatorenal syndrome (OR: 16.5; 95% CI = 7.02-38.9) or hepatic encephalopathy (OR: 2.38; 95% CI = 1.25-4.5) were independent predictors of mortality. Transfusions and onset of hepatic encephalopathy were significantly more frequent in variceal, whereas ICU admission rate was higher in nonvariceal bleedings. Overall, antibiotic prophylaxis was eventually administered in only 392 (55.5%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Data found that the overall mortality rate in cirrhotics with UGIB seems to be reducing and that the value did not differ between variceal and nonvariceal types. Prevention of both hepatorenal syndrome and hepatic encephalopathy and implementation of antibiotic prophylaxis could improve survival in these patients.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in cirrhosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can be classified as acute variceal bleeding (AVB) or non-variceal bleeding (NVB). Differences in mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission have yet to be determined. As such, the study aimed to evaluate differences in these clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients admitted with UGIB.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all cirrhotic patients hospitalized for UGIB who underwent upper endoscopy from July 2014 to July 2016. AVB was defined as the presence of varices on endoscopy with high-risk stigmata such as cherry-red spots. Mortality, intensive care unit admission, hospital LOS, and 30-day hospital readmission were recorded and compared among patients with AVB and NVB.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients with cirrhosis were included, 73 with AVB and 43 with NVB. Patients with NVB were older than those with AVB (60.4 ± 11.1 vs 55.0 ± 9.5, P = 0.006) whereas patients with AVB were more likely to have known esophageal varices (64.4% vs 37.2%, P = 0.007). Patients with AVB and NVB had similar mortality (15.1% vs 9.3%, P = 0.57), hospital LOS (4.9, interquartile range: 3.6-6.9 days vs 5.0, interquartile range: 2.7-8.3 days), and 30-day readmission rates (19.2% vs 30.2%, P = 0.18). Severity of clinical presentation was associated with increased LOS and overall mortality, including the need for intensive care unit admission, but these were not associated with 30-day readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in clinical outcomes, including mortality, in cirrhotic patients admitted with AVB and NVB.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality in a cohort of elderly Egyptian patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) affects large number of elderly with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Early identification and management of the factors predicting in-hospital mortality might decrease mortality. This study was conducted to identify the causes of acute UGIB and the predictors of in-hospital mortality in elderly Egyptian patients.286 elderly patients with acute UGIB were divided into: bleeding variceal group (161 patients) and bleeding nonvariceal group (125 patients). Patients' monitoring was done during hospitalization to identify the risk factors that might predict in-hospital mortality in elderly.Variceal bleeding was the most common cause of acute UGIB in elderly Egyptian patients. In-hospital mortality rate was 8.74%. Increasing age, hemodynamic instability at presentation, co-morbidities (especially liver cirrhosis associated with other co-morbidity) and failure to control bleeding were the predictors of in-hospital mortality.Increasing age, hemodynamic instability at presentation, co-morbidities (especially liver cirrhosis associated with other co-morbidity) and failure to control bleeding should be considered when triaging those patients for immediate resuscitation, close observation, and early treatment.

Should Vasoconstrictors be Considered in a Cirrhotic Patient with Acute Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

Varices manifest as a major etiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with chronic liver diseases, such as liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. By contrast, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is rare. Pharmacological treatment differs between patients with variceal and non-variceal bleeding. Vasoconstrictors are recommended for the treatment of variceal bleeding, rather than non-variceal bleeding. In contrast, pump proton inhibitors are recommended for the treatment of non-variceal bleeding, rather than variceal bleeding. Herein, we present a case with liver cirrhosis and acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who had a high risk of rebleeding (i.e., Child-Pugh class C, hepatocellular carcinoma, portal vein thrombosis, low albumin, and high international normalized ratio and D-dimer). As the source of bleeding was obscure, only terlipressin without pump proton inhibitors was initially administered. Acute bleeding episode was effectively controlled. After that, an elective endoscopic examination confirmed that the source of bleeding was attributed to peptic ulcer, rather than varices. Based on this preliminary case report, we further discussed the potential role of vasoconstrictors in a patient with cirrhosis with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.