[Acute liver ischaemia after gastro-oesophageal variceal bleeding]

One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability and shock are associated with untoward outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no studies in the existing literature on the proportion of patients who developed these outcomes after gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To determine the pooled event rates in the available literature and specify them based on the bleeding source.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO in advance (CRD42021283258). A systematic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) on 14th October 2021. Pooled proportions with 95%CI were calculated with a random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on the time of assessment (on admission or during hospital stay). Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. The Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) tool was applied to obtain the latest highlight articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11589 records, of which 220 studies were eligible for data extraction. The overall proportion of shock and hemodynamic instability in general gastrointestinal bleeding patients was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 100%). In non-variceal bleeding, the proportion was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.31, I2 = 100%), whereas it was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.19-0.32, I2 = 100%) in variceal bleeding. The proportion of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding who developed shock or hemodynamic instability was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06-0.22, I2 = 90%). The risk of bias was low, and heterogeneity was high in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

One in five, one in four, and one in eight patients develops shock or hemodynamic instability on admission or during hospitalization in the case of non-variceal, variceal, and colonic diverticular bleeding, respectively.

Case Control Study of Post-endoscopic Variceal Ligation Bleeding Ulcers in Severe Liver Disease: Outcomes and Management

Background and Aims: The management of post-endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) bleeding ulcers (PEBUs) is currently based on local expertise and patients liver disease status. The present retrospective study investigated associations between the endoscopic morphology of PEBUs and patient outcomes. Methods: Patients underwent EVL (primary or secondary), from January 2015 to January 2018, in two tertiary care hospitals in India (ILBS New Delhi and Dharamshila Narayana New Delhi). Mortality rates were determined at post-EVL day five and week six. PEBUs were typified based on Jamwal & Sarin classification system as follows: A, ulcer with active spurting; B, ulcer with ooze; C, ulcer base with visible vessel or clot; and D, clean or pigmented base. Results: Of 3854 EVL procedures, 141 (3.6%) patients developed PEBU, and 46/141 (32.6%) suffered mortality. Among the former, the PEBU types A, B, C, and D accounted for 17.7, 26.2, 36.3, and 19.8%, respectively. Of those who died, 39.1, 30.4, 21.7, and 8.8% had PEBU types A, B, C, and D. Treatments included transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS), esophageal self-expandable metal stent (SEMS), glue and sclerosant injection, Sengstaken-Blakemore tube placement and liver transplant. On univariate analysis, no correlation with hepatic venous pressure gradient, TIPS placement, size of varices, or number of bands was found. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-sodium score correlated positively with outcome. After adjusting for MELD-sodium score, mortality was best predicted by type-A ulcer (p = 0.024; OR 8.95, CI 1.34-59.72). Conclusions: PEBU occurred in 3.6% of a large EVL cohort. Stratifying patients based on PEBU type can help predict outcomes, independent of the MELD-sodium score. Classifying PEBUs by endoscopic morphology may inform treatment strategies, and warrants further validation.