Timing of upper endoscopy influences outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding

Emergency medicine updates: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, it is important for emergency clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease.

OBJECTIVE

This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning UGIB for the emergency clinician.

DISCUSSION

UGIB most frequently presents with hematemesis. There are numerous causes, with the most common peptic ulcer disease, though variceal bleeding in particular can be severe. Nasogastric tube lavage for diagnosis is not recommended based on the current evidence. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), but patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability require emergent transfusion regardless of their level. Medications that may be used in UGIB include proton pump inhibitors, prokinetic agents, and vasoactive medications. Antibiotics are recommended for those with cirrhosis and suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopy is the diagnostic and therapeutic modality of choice and should be performed within 24 h of presentation in non-variceal bleeding after resuscitation, though patients with variceal bleeding may require endoscopy within 12 h. Transcatheter arterial embolization or surgical intervention may be necessary. Intubation should be avoided if possible. If intubation is necessary, several considerations are required, including resuscitation prior to induction, utilizing preoxygenation and appropriate suction, and administering a prokinetic agent. There are a variety of tools available for risk stratification, including the Glasgow Blatchford Score.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of literature updates can improve the ED care of patients with UGIB.

The interaction of patients' physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A national prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The correct time to perform an upper endoscopy is decisive in acutely GI bleeding patients. However, patients' physical status may affect mortality. We speculated that the physical status and procedural time could be the principal factors accountable for death-risk. The primary aim was to verify the interaction between physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality; the secondary aim was to verify the interaction of the physical status and time to endoscopy on the length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals were included. Clinical and endoscopic data were recorded. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and the interaction of adjusted clinical physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality was calculated.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 3.190 patients. The time frames did not interfere with outcomes but influenced LOS. Conversely, the ASA score correlated with mortality, LOS, need for transfusions and rebleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy time should be tailored to the patient's physical. In our experience, ASA 1-2-3 patients can be safely submitted to endoscopy to reduce the LOS; on the contrary, keen attention should be paid to ASA4 patients, following the 'not too early-not too late' rule (12-24 h from admission).

Role of Endoscopy in the Diagnosis, Grading, and Treatment of Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia

Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) and gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) are 2 distinct gastric vascular abnormalities that may present with acute or chronic blood loss. PHG requires the presence of portal hypertension and is typically associated with chronic liver disease, whereas there is controversy about the association of GAVE with chronic liver disease and/or portal hypertension. Distinguishing between GAVE and PHG is crucial because their treatment strategies differ. This review highlights characteristic endoscopic appearances and the clinical features of PHG and GAVE, which, in turn, aid in their appropriate management.

Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Using Anticoagulants: Does the Timing of Endoscopy Affect Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), early (≤ 24 h) endoscopy is recommended following hemodynamic resuscitation. Nevertheless, scarce data exist on the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with NVUGIB receiving anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze how the timing of endoscopy may influence outcomes in anticoagulants users admitted with NVUGIB.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study which consecutively included all adult patients using anticoagulants presenting with NVUGIB between January 2011 and June 2020. Time from presentation to endoscopy was assessed and defined as early (≤ 24 h) and delayed (> 24 h). The outcomes considered were endoscopic or surgical treatment, length of hospital stay, intermediate/intensive care unit admission, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

From 636 patients presenting with NVUGIB, 138 (21.7%) were taking anticoagulants. Vitamin K antagonists were the most frequent anticoagulants used (63.8%, n = 88). After adjusting for confounders, patients who underwent early endoscopy (59.4%, n = 82) received endoscopic therapy more frequently (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-5.4; P = 0.034), had shorter length of hospital stay [7 (IQR 6) vs 9 (IQR 7) days, P = 0.042] and higher rate of intermediate/intensive care unit admission (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.3 - 5.9; P = 0.010) than patients having delayed endoscopy. Surgical treatment, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Early endoscopy (≤ 24 h) in anticoagulant users admitted with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with higher rate of endoscopic treatment, shorter hospital stay, and higher intermediate/intensive care unit admission. The timing of endoscopy did not influence the need for surgical intervention, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality.

Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008).

CONCLUSION

Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy).

Relationships of hospitalization outcomes and timing to endoscopy in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and the impact of clinico-demographic factors on hospitalization outcomes in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) remains an area of active research.

AIM

To identify independent predictors of outcomes in patients with NVUGIB, with a particular focus on EGD timing, anticoagulation (AC) status, and demographic features.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of adult patients with NVUGIB from 2009 to 2014 was performed using validated ICD-9 codes from the National Inpatient Sample database. Patients were stratified by EGD timing relative to hospital admission (≤ 24 h, 24-48 h, 48-72 h, and > 72 h) and then by AC status (yes/no). The primary outcome was all-cause inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included healthcare usage.

RESULTS

Of the 1082516 patients admitted for NVUGIB, 553186 (51.1%) underwent EGD. The mean time to EGD was 52.8 h. Early (< 24 h from admission) EGD was associated with significantly decreased mortality, less frequent intensive care unit admission, shorter length of hospital stays, lower hospital costs, and an increased likelihood of discharge to home (all with P < 0.001). AC status was not associated with mortality among patients who underwent early EGD (aOR 0.88, P = 0.193). Male sex (OR 1.30) and Hispanic (OR 1.10) or Asian (aOR 1.38) race were also independent predictors of adverse hospitalization outcomes in NVUGIB.

CONCLUSION

Based on this large, nationwide study, early EGD in NVUGIB is associated with lower mortality and decreased healthcare usage, irrespective of AC status. These findings may help guide clinical management and would benefit from prospective validation.

Defining Time in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: When Should We Start the Clock?

Introduction: The execution of upper endoscopy at the proper time is key to correctly managing patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Nonetheless, the definition of “time” for endoscopic examinations in UGIB patients is imprecise. The primary aim of this study was to verify whether the different definitions of “time” (i.e., the symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes) impact mortality. The secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate the similarity between the two timeframes. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed on a prospective multicenter cohort study, which included UGIB patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals. We collected the timings from symptoms and presentation to endoscopy, together with other demographic, organizational and clinical data and outcomes. Results: Out of the 3324 patients in the cohort, complete time data were available for 3166 patients. A significant difference of 9.2 h (p < 0.001) was found between the symptoms-to-endoscopy vs. presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes. The symptoms-to-endoscopy timeframe demonstrated (1) a different death risk profile and (2) a statistically significant improvement in the prediction of mortality risk compared to the presentation-to-endoscopy timeframe (p < 0.0002). The similarity between the two different timeframes was moderate (K = 0.42 ± 0.01; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes referred to different timings during the management of upper endoscopy in bleeding patients, with the former being more accurate in correctly identifying the mortality risk of these patients. We suggest that further studies be conducted to validate our observations, and, if confirmed, a different definition of time should be adopted in endoscopy.

Comparison of urgent and early endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

Data regarding early (within 24h) and urgent endoscopy (within 12h) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB) revealed conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the impact of endoscopy timing on the outcomes of high-risk patients with NV-UGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2020 to February 2021, consecutive high-risk (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥12) adults admitted to the emergency department with NV-UGIB were analyzed retrospectively. The primary composite outcome was 30-day mortality from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for endoscopic re-intervention, need for surgery or angiographic embolization.

RESULTS

240 patients were enrolled: 152 (63%) patients underwent urgent endoscopy (<12h) and 88 (37%) patients underwent early endoscopy (12-24h). One or more components of the composite outcome were observed in 53 (22.1%) patients: 30 (12.5%) had 30-day mortality, rebleeding occurred in 27 (11.3%), 7 (2.9%) underwent endoscopic re-intervention, and 5 (2.1%) required surgery or angiographic embolization. The composite outcome was similar between the groups. Multivariate analysis showed only hemodynamic instability on admission (OR: 3.05, p=0.006), and the previous history of cancer (OR: 2.42, p=0.029) were significant in predicting composite outcome. In terms of secondary outcomes, the endoscopic intervention was higher in the urgent endoscopy group (p=0.006), whereas the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions and the length of hospital stay was higher in the early endoscopy group (p=0.002 and p=0.040, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy leads to a significant reduction in the length of hospitalization and the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions in NV-UGIB, which can contribute to patient satisfaction, reduce healthcare expenditure, and improve hospital bed availability. The composite outcome and its sub-outcomes were the same among both groups.

Increasing inpatient mortality of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide retrospective cohort study

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding results in significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden. This study aimed to evaluate inpatient outcomes of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) during the year 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Inpatient Sample databases were used to identify NVUGIB-related hospitalizations. Outcomes of interest for the year 2019 were compared to 2020 and included inpatient mortality, length of stay, mean inpatient cost, odds of getting esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), mean time to EGD, early EGD (within 1 day of hospitalization), endoscopic intervention for hemostasis, and the odds of developing complications. NVUGIB-related hospitalizations increased by 8.1% in 2020. NVUGIB-related hospitalizations in 2020 were also associated with an 11.1% higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.11, confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.17, P < 0.01), 0.15-day longer mean time to EGD (aOR = 0.15, CI = 0.08-0.24, P < 0.01), 4% lower odds of getting an EGD (aOR = 0.96, CI = 0.93-0.99, P = 0.02), 8% lower odds of getting an early EGD (aOR = 0.92, CI = 0.89-0.96, P < 0.01), and $6340 higher mean inpatient cost (aOR = 6340, CI = 1762-10919, P = 0.01) compared to 2019. We conclude that there was an increase in NVUGIB-related hospitalizations and mortality in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic started.

Timing of endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains controversial. In this study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of urgent endoscopy in patients with UGIB compared with elective endoscopy. From January 2016 to December 2018, consecutive patients who visited the emergency department and underwent endoscopy for clinical manifestations of acute UGIB, including variceal bleeding, were eligible. Urgent endoscopy (within 6 h) and elective endoscopy (after 6 h) were defined as the time taken to perform endoscopy after presentation to the emergency department. The primary outcome was mortality rate within 30 days. A total of 572 patients were included in the analysis. Urgent endoscopy was performed in 490 patients (85.7%). The 30-day mortality rate did not differ between the urgent and elective endoscopy groups (5.3% and 6.1%, p = 0.791). There was no difference regarding the recurrent bleeding rate, total amount of transfusion, or length of hospital between the groups. In multivariate analysis, age and the amount of transfusion were associated with mortality. Urgent endoscopy was not associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate compared with elective endoscopy in patients with acute UGIB.

Lower rates of endoscopy and higher mortality in end-stage renal disease patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: A propensity matched national study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis are considered to be at higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) as compared with those without renal disease (NRD). We conducted a population-based study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to study the outcomes of GIB in ESRD.

METHODS

Patients admitted with GIB (upper and lower) from 2005 to 2013 were extracted from the NIS database using ICD-9 codes. Patients were divided into NRD and ESRD groups, and a 1:1 propensity matched analysis was performed. Various outcomes were compared in both groups, and subgroup analysis based on the timing of endoscopy was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 218 032 patients were included in the study. There was an increase in inpatient admissions among ESRD patients with GIB with significant reduction in mortality (P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total costs were significantly higher in ESRD patients as compared with NRD. ESRD patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic evaluation compared with NRD (P < 0.001). Late endoscopy (> 48 h) was associated with increased need for transfusion and health-care utilization but without a significant difference in mortality as compared with early endoscopy. On multivariate analysis, endoscopy was associated with significantly lower rate of mortality in ESRD patients with GIB (odds ratio 0.28, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

End-stage renal disease patients with GIB had a significantly higher rate of mortality and a higher health-care utilization with a lower rate of endoscopic evaluation. Endoscopy was associated with a lower mortality rate on multivariate analysis.

How Can Patient's Risk Dictate the Timing of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) management has improved substantially in the last decades, there is still much controversy regarding the optimal timing for performance of endoscopy. Recent guidelines suggest performing an early endoscopy within 24 h of nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) presentation, although its impact on patients with different bleeding risks remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of performing endoscopy within 24 h on NVUGIB outcomes and to compare it in patients with lower-risk vs. higher-risk bleeding.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB over 4 years. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and outcome data were collected. Lower-risk bleeding was defined as a Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) <12 and higher-risk bleeding was defined as a GBS ≥12.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients with suspected NVUGIB were included, 55% of whom had higher-risk bleeding. Endoscopy was performed within 24 h in 62.1% of the patients. In lower-risk bleeding patients, performance of endoscopy within 24 h was associated with a higher need for endoscopic treatment (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.7; p = 0.004), a lower 30-day mortality (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p = 0.03), and a lower need for transfusion (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36-0.92; p = 0.02). In higher-risk bleeding patients, there were no statistically significant differences in NVUGIB outcomes in performing endoscopy within 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy within 24 h of presentation was associated with a lower need for transfusion, a higher need for endoscopic treatment, and a lower 30-day mortality in lower-risk NVUGIB patients. Thus, performing endoscopy within the first 24 h of presentation can have a positive impact on NVUGIB outcomes even in lower-risk bleeding.

Pros and Cons of Performing Early Endoscopy in Geriatric Patients Admitted with Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Analysis of the US National Inpatient Database

BACKGROUND

Age greater than 65 years is a well-defined risk factor for increased mortality in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB). Endoscopy is indicated in most patients at any age but presents unique risks in the elderly cohort, and ideal timing is unclear. This study examined the association between outcomes and early (within 24 h) esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) among elderly patients with NVGIB.

METHODS

All patients over age 65 admitted primarily for NVGIB who underwent EGD were included from the National Inpatient Sample 2016-2017. Clinical outcomes stratified by early EGD versus late EGD were compared after adjustment for comorbidities and bleeding severity using inverse probability of treatment weighting with survey-adjusted linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of estimated 625,530 admissions with a primary diagnosis of NVGIB, 120,835 met eligibility criteria; 24,830 underwent early EGD. Mean length of stay and total charges decreased by 1.17 days (95%CI 1.04-1.30, P < 0.001) and $5717.24 (95%CI 4034.57-7399.91, P < 0.001), respectively, in the early EGD group. Early EGD increased the odds ratio of death 1.32 (95%CI 1.06-1.64, P 0.01) and transfer to other hospitals 1.48 (95%CI 1.22-1.81, P < 0.001). No change was seen in the requirement for surgery or angiography. Rates of discharge to a nursing facility or home health were similar.

CONCLUSION

In a comprehensive cohort of geriatric patients with NVGIB, early EGD is associated with decreased hospital stay and charges, but also with increased mortality and inter-hospital transfer. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of this vulnerable population.

Does off-hours endoscopic hemostasis affect outcomes of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Aim: Different researches showed controversial results about the 'off-hours effect' in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Materials & methods: A total of 301 patients with NVUGIB were divided into regular-hours group and off-hours group based on when they received endoscopic hemostasis, and the relationship of the clinical outcomes with off-hours endoscopic hemostasis was evaluated. Results: Patients who received off-hours endoscopy were sicker and more likely to experience worse clinical outcomes. Off-hours endoscopic hemostasis was a significant predictor of the composite outcome in higher-risk patients (adjusted OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 1.35-15.90). However, it did not associate with the outcomes in lower-risk patients. Conclusion: Off-hours effect may affect outcomes of higher-risk NVUGIB patients receiving endoscopic hemostasis (GBS ≥12).

Urgent Endoscopy Improves Hemostasis in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Biliary-pancreatic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a lethal complication of biliary-pancreatic surgery (BPS). The role of endoscopic intervention has not been fully defined in such a critical condition. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with acute UGIB after BPS who received interventional endoscopy between January 2007 and August 2020 were included in this study. The clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed to screen for predictive factors significantly associated with successful hemostasis.

RESULTS

Among 37,772 patients who underwent BPS, 26 patients (0.069%) developed acute UGIB. The sites and causes of hemorrhage were as follows: gastroenteric anastomoe (n=17), gastric stump (n=2), jejunal anastomose (n=1), duodenal bulb ulcer (n=2), pancreatojejunal anastomosis hemorrhage (n=1), cholangiojejunal anastomose (n=1), gastroenteric anastomose and gastric stump hemorrhage (n=1), and Dieulafoy lesion (n=1). Successful endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in 19 (73.1%) of the 26 UGIB patients. In the 7 patients who failed endotherapy, 1 patient received a successful radiologic intervention, 6 patients underwent reoperation and achieved hemostasis in 4, and the other 2 patients died after reoperation. Logistic regression analysis showed that presentation-to-endoscopy time (≤12 h) was the only independent predictive factor associated with successful endoscopic hemostasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis is relatively safe and effective in controlling UIGB after BPS. Prompt intervention (≤12 h) could improve the success rate of endoscopic hemostasis.

Impact of time to esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for reducing mortality and rebleeding, in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To describe the decrease in the risk for mortality, rebleeding, and red blood cell transfusion, with the performance of urgent EGD, in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a search for cohort studies or controlled clinical trials, published from December 1966 to May 2020, that compared urgent EGD versus elective EGD in the management of adults with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, utilizing the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Our primary outcome was the hospital mortality comparison. The incidence of rebleeding and the mean number of red blood cell units transfused were also compared. A random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included, involving 489,622 patients. We found no differences in the mortality of subjects exposed to urgent EGD versus elective EGD (RR 1.12 [0.72-1.72]). There was a significant increase in the risk for rebleeding (RR 1.30 [1.05-1.60]) in the subjects exposed to urgent EGD, and fewer red blood cell units were transfused in those patients (RR 0.52 [0.05-0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent EGD in subjects with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding does not appear to have a significant impact on short-term mortality.

Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Introduction:

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding can be a life-threatening condition and requires careful evaluation from the very first episode in order to reduce the risk of rebleeding, hemorrhagic shock and death. The outcome of a patient with upper gastrointestinal bleeding depends on resuscitation measures taken during admission to the hospital and an adequate assessment of the patient’s risk level.

Aim:

The aim of the study is to compare Glasgow Blatchford score and Rockall score and to identify the most accurate score used in predicting unfavorable outcomes and the need for intervention.

Methods:

This study involves 237 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The accuracy of the scoring systems was assessed by plotting receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC curves) and was calculated for GBS and RS with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results:

As for mortality prediction, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.806 vs. 0.750). The GBS had a higher accuracy in detecting patients who needed transfusion units and was superior to the RS (AUC 0.810 vs.0.675). In predicting the need for intervention, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.707 vs. 0.636.

Conclusion:

GBS and RS are developed to help clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to assess endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame, as well as identify low risk patients for possible outpatient management. High accuracy of the GBS in predicting a need for transfusion represents an important endpoint to assess. RS was superior to GBS in predicting a need for intervention as well as mortality. Currently, a combination of these scoring systems is the best way for proper assessment.

Does timing of endoscopy affect outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains controversial. Early EGD (E-EGD) (within 24 h of presentation) has been compared to late EGD (L-EGD) (after 24 h) in numerous studies with conflicting results. The previous systematic review included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the cutoff time for performing EGD was arbitrary. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing the outcomes of E-EGD and L-EGD group.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was undertaken to include both RCTs and cohort studies. Primary outcomes including overall mortality and secondary outcomes (recurrent bleeding, need for transfusion, and length of stay) were compared. Risk ratios and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 13 observational studies (with over 1.8 million patients) were included in the final analysis. No significant difference in overall mortality (risk ratio: 0.97; CI, 0.74-1.27), recurrent bleeding (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.62-2.00), and length of stay (SMD: -0.07, CI, -0.31 to 0.18) was observed for E-EGD group compared to L-EGD group. The possibility of endoscopic intervention was higher in E-EGD group (risk ratio: 1.70, CI, 1.28-2.27). Consistent results were obtained for subgroup analysis of studies with 100% nonvariceal bleed (NVB) patient (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.84-1.50).

CONCLUSION

Given the outcomes and limitations, our meta-analysis did not demonstrate clear benefit of performing EGD within 24 h of presentation for UGIB (particularly NVB).

An emergency department-based intensive care unit is associated with decreased hospital length of stay for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) utilization. Initial risk stratification and disposition from the Emergency Department (ED) can prove challenging due to limited data points during a short period of observation. An ED-based ICU (ED-ICU) may allow more rapid delivery of ICU-level care, though its impact on patients with UGIB is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary U.S. academic medical center. An ED-ICU (the Emergency Critical Care Center [EC3]) opened in February 2015. Patients presenting to the ED with UGIB undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy within 72 h were identified and analyzed. The Pre- and Post-EC3 cohorts included patients from 9/2/2012-2/15/2015 and 2/16/2015-6/30/2019.

RESULTS

We identified 3788 ED visits; 1033 Pre-EC3 and 2755 Post-EC3. Of Pre-EC3 visits, 200 were critically ill and admitted to ICU [Cohort A]. Of Post-EC3 visits, 682 were critically ill and managed in EC3 [Cohort B], whereas 61 were critically ill and admitted directly to ICU without care in EC3 [Cohort C]. The mean interval from ED presentation to ICU level care was shorter in Cohort B than A or C (3.8 vs 6.3 vs 7.7 h, p < 0.05). More patients in Cohort B received ICU level care within six hours of ED arrival (85.3 vs 52.0 vs 57.4%, p < 0.05). Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was shorter in Cohort B than A or C (6.2 vs 7.3 vs 10.0 days, p < 0.05). In the Post-EC3 cohort, fewer patients were admitted to an ICU (9.3 vs 19.4%, p < 0.001). The rate of floor admission with transfer to ICU within 24 h was similar. No differences in absolute or risk-adjusted mortality were observed.

CONCLUSION

For critically ill ED patients with UGIB, implementation of an ED-ICU was associated with reductions in rate of ICU admission and hospital LOS, with no differences in safety outcomes.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Clinical utility of the Glasgow Blatchford Score in patients presenting to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to EDs. Limited Australian data are available. Study aims were to assess mortality and re-bleeding rates in patients presenting with UGIB as risk-stratified by the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of all patients presenting with UGIB to a Brisbane tertiary hospital ED over a 12-month period. This descriptive study summarised the medical characteristics related to UGIB as risk-stratified by the GBS. Non-variceal bleeding was categorised as low-risk (GBS 0-2) or high-risk (GBS 3+). Variceal bleeding was not risk stratified.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients presented with UGIB to the ED. The median age was 57 years, 67% were male. Mortality rates at 30 days were: 0% for GBS 0-2, 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-6) for GBS 3+ and 10% (95% CI 0-21) for variceal groups. The overall 30-day re-bleeding rate was 4.3% (95% CI 2-7). High-risk patients accessed endoscopy according to international best practice of less than 24 h (GBS 3+, 23.7 h; variceal bleeding, 7.3 h).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality and re-bleeding outcomes are similar to other international UGIB cohorts. Patients with a low-risk bleed were appropriately identified and discharged home. Those at higher risk were correctly identified and accessed timely endoscopy. The GBS demonstrated clinical utility in an Australian ED cohort of UGIB bleeding patients.

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for hospital admission in older adult patients and carries a high morbidity and mortality if not properly managed. Risk factors include advanced age, Helicobacter pylori infection, medication use, smoking, and history of liver disease. Patients with known or suspected liver disease and suspected variceal bleeding should also receive antibiotics and somatostatin analogues. Risk stratification scores should be used to determine patients at highest risk for further decompensation. Upper endoscopy is both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool used in the management of upper GI bleeding. Endoscopy should be performed within 24 hours of presentation after appropriate resuscitation. Management of anticoagulation in upper GI bleeding largely depends on the indication for anticoagulation, the risk of continued bleeding with continuing the medication, and the risk of thrombosis with discontinuing the medication. A multidisciplinary approach to the decision of anticoagulation continuation is preferred when possible.

Clinical efficacy, timing, and outcomes of ERCP for management of bile duct leaks: a nationwide cohort study

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can safely and effectively manage postsurgical or traumatic bile duct leaks (BDLs). Standardized guidelines are lacking regarding effective management of BDLs. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy, clinical outcomes, and complications of different ERCP techniques and intervention timing using a nationwide database. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective analysis of the IBM Explorys database (1999-2019), a pooled, national, de-identified clinical database of over 64 million unique patients across the United States. ERCP timing after BDL was classified as emergent (< 1 day), urgent (1-3 days) or expectant (> 3 days). ERCP technique was classified into sphincterotomy, stent or combination therapy. ERCP complications were defined as pancreatitis, duodenal perforation, duodenal hemorrhage, and ascending cholangitis within 7 days of the procedure. Results  Expectant ERCP had a decreased risk of adverse events (AEs) compared to emergent and urgent ERCP ( P  = 0.004). Rehospitalization rates also were lower in expectant ERCP ( P  < 0.001). Patients with COPD were more likely to have an AE if the ERCP was performed emergently compared to expectantly ( P  = 0.002). Combination therapy had a lower rate of ERCP failure compared to placement of a biliary stent ( P  = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in rates of ERCP failure between biliary stent and sphincterotomy ( P  = 0.06) or sphincterotomy and combination therapy ( P  = 0.74). Conclusion  Our study suggests that ERCP does not need to be performed emergently or urgently for management of BDLs. Combination therapy is superior to stenting or sphincterotomy; however, future prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, Anticoagulation, and Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Advanced age, history of peptic ulcer disease, Helicobacter pylori, coadministration of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, anticoagulation, and antiplatelets are risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly. Awareness of these risks and appropriate use of NSAIDs, particularly in those needing antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, is critical to optimal management. Careful selection of elderly patients requiring antiplatelet, anticoagulation, or chronic NSAID therapy for cotherapy with proton pump inhibitors can significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Transcatheter and Endoscopic Treatment of Gastric and Duodenal Bleeding: Population-Based Analysis of National Inpatient Trends and Outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause of hospital admission in the United States and is frequently treated by endoscopy. Recent studies have shown an increasing role for treatment using transcatheter embolization.

METHODS

Data from the national inpatient sample (1993-2015) were used for trend analysis and to compare patient characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes for endoscopic and transcatheter treatments of gastric and duodenal bleeding.

RESULTS

Despite the continued decline in the rate of hospitalization for upper GI bleeding (-43% since 1993, P < .01), admissions for embolization (21.1% per year since 2005, P < .01) and endoscopic treatments (1.2%-6.1% per year since 1993, P < .01) have increased in the past decade. Patients with multiple comorbidities that include coagulopathy (25.6% versus 11.9%, P < .05), liver disease (16.0% versus 10.7%, P < .05), fluid and electrolyte disorder (51.0% versus 35.4%, P < .05), and metastatic cancer (6.9% versus 2.4%, P < .05) were more likely to receive embolization. Embolization was associated with higher crude risk of death (9.2% versus 2.1%, P < .01), lengthier hospital stays (9.1 days versus 5.1 days, P < .01), and greater average total hospital charges (US$135,000 versus US$46,000). The association between embolization (versus endoscopy) and mortality and length of stay diminished after controlling for disease severity and other procedures in propensity score-matched groups and by covariate adjustment.

DISCUSSION

Though endoscopy remains the main treatment of upper GI bleeding, embolization is associated with comparable mortality and length of stay after accounting for disease severity and the need for additional procedures.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB. Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review. A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Does Weekend Hospital Admission Affect Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Outcomes?: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Compared with weekday admissions, weekend admissions are consistently associated with worse patient outcomes, known as the "weekend effect." The weekend effect may have adverse health consequences, including death. To determine the potential impact of the weekend effect on primary (ie, mortality) and secondary outcomes of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a network meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Databases were searched for studies published up to April 2018. The predefined primary outcome was mortality (30-d mortality and in-hospital mortality). The secondary efficacy outcomes were rebleeding rates, use of endoscopic therapy, need for surgery or angiography, mean length of hospital stay, and time to endoscopy. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42018094660).

RESULTS

In total, 25 studies, including 28 analyses (N=1,203,202 patients), were eligible. The results revealed a tendency toward increased 30-day mortality and increased in-hospital mortality among weekend admissions. In a subgroup analysis, there were significance differences in mortality according to the study location (ie, Europe) and UGIH type (ie, variceal UGIH), with these subgroups having elevated mortality rates. Moreover, weekday admissions were associated with a significant decrease in rebleeding rates. In the network meta-analysis, the study location (in Europe or Asia) and type of UGIH (ie, variceal UGIH) were associated with an increased likelihood of high in-hospital mortality among weekend admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence derived from this network meta-analysis supports the idea that weekend admissions are associated with an increased risk of death, especially among variceal UGIH patients in European hospitals.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leak: When and how? A nationwide study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

ERCP is considered the first-line therapy for biliary duct leaks (BDLs). However, the optimal ERCP timing and endotherapy methods remain controversial. Our aim was to evaluate these factors as predictors of poor clinical outcomes after BDLs.

METHODS

Adults who underwent ERCP for BDLs after cholecystectomy were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2014. ERCP was classified as emergent, urgent, and expectant if it was done within 1 day, after 2 to 3 days, or >3 days after BDLs, respectively. Endotherapy was classified into sphincterotomy, stent, or combination. Post-ERCP adverse events (AEs) were defined as requiring pressor infusion, endotracheal intubation, invasive monitoring, or hemodialysis. Early endotherapy failure was defined as the need for salvage surgical or radiology-percutaneous biliary intervention after ERCP.

RESULTS

A total of 1028 patients with a median age of 56 years were included. ERCP was done emergently (19%), urgently (30%), and expectantly (51%). Endotherapy procedures were sphincterotomy (24%), biliary stent (24%), and combination (52%). Post-ERCP AEs were 11%, 10%, and 9% for emergent, urgent, and expectant ERCP, respectively (P = .577). In-hospital mortality showed a U-shape trend of 5%, 0%, and 2% for emergent, urgent, and expectant ERCP, respectively (P < .001). Combination and stent monotherapy had lower failure rates of 3% and 4%, respectively as compared with sphincterotomy monotherapy with failure rate of 11% (P < .001). When multivariate analysis was used, both combination (odds ratio, .2; 95% confidence interval, .1-.5) and stent monotherapy (odds ratio, .4; 95% confidence interval, .2-.9) were less likely to fail as compared with sphincterotomy monotherapy. There were no statistically significant differences between combination therapy and stent monotherapy in the univariate and the multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by retrospective design and the possibility of selection bias, this analysis suggests that the timing of ERCP is not a significant predictor of post-ERCP AEs after BDLs. Furthermore, combination or stent monotherapy had lower failure rates as compared with sphincterotomy monotherapy.

AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Risk stratification for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (NVUGI) bleeding is crucial for successful prognosis and treatment. Recently, the AIMS65 score has been used to predict mortality risk and rebleeding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in Korea.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 512 patients with NVUGI bleeding who were treated at a university hospital between 2013 and 2016. The AIMS65, GBS, Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score were used to stratify patients based on their bleeding risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite clinical outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Each scoring system was compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC).

Results

A total of 17 patients (3.3%) died and rebleeding developed in 65 patients (12.7%). Eighty-six patients (16.8%) required ICU admission. The AIMS65 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.88)) seemed to be superior to the GBS (AUC 0.72, 0.68–0.76), the Rockall score (AUC 0.75, 0.71–0.79), or the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (AUC 0.74, 0.70–0.78) in predicting in-hospital mortality, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The AUC value of the AIMS65 was not significantly different from the other scoring systems in prediction of rebleeding, endoscopic intervention, or ICU admission.

Conclusions

The AIMS65 score in NVUGI bleeding patients was comparable to the GBS or Rockall scoring systems when predicting the mortality, rebleeding, or ICU admission. Because AIMS65 is a much easier, readily calculated scoring system compared to the others, we would recommend using the AIMS65 in daily practice.

Red blood cell transfusions for emergency department patients with gastrointestinal bleeding within an integrated health system

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess trends over time in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practice among emergency department (ED) patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding within an integrated healthcare system, inclusive of 21 EDs.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of ED patients diagnosed with GI bleeding between July 1st, 2012 and September 30th, 2016. The primary outcome was receipt of an RBC transfusion in the ED. Secondary outcomes included 90-day rates of RBC transfusion, repeat ED visits, rehospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Logistic regression was used to obtain confounder-adjusted outcome rates.

RESULTS

A total of 24,868 unique patient encounters were used for the primary analysis. The median hemoglobin level in the ED prior to RBC transfusion decreased from 7.5 g/dl to 6.9 g/dl in the first versus last twelve months of the study period (p < 0.0001). A small trend was observed in the overall adjusted rate of ED RBC transfusion (absolute quarterly change of -0.1%, R2 = 0.18, p = 0.0001) largely attributable to the subgroup of patients with hemoglobin nadirs between 7.0 and 9.9 g/dl (absolute quarterly change of -0.4%, R2 = 0.38, p < 0.0001). Rates of RBC transfusions through 90 days likewise decreased (absolute quarterly change of -0.4%, R2 = 0.85, p < 0.0001) with stable to decreased corresponding rates of repeat ED visits, rehospitalizations and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Rates of ED RBC transfusion decreased over time among patients with GI bleeding, particularly in those with hemoglobin nadirs between 7.0 and 9.9 g/dl. These findings suggest that ED providers are willing to adopt evidence-based restrictive RBC transfusion recommendations for patients with GI bleeding.

Using a Multi-Task Recurrent Neural Network With Attention Mechanisms to Predict Hospital Mortality of Patients

Estimating hospital mortality of patients is important in assisting clinicians to make decisions and hospital providers to allocate resources. This paper proposed a multi-task recurrent neural network with attention mechanisms to predict patients' hospital mortality, using reconstruction of patients' physiological time series as an auxiliary task. Experiments were conducted on a large public electronic health record database, i.e., MIMIC-III. Fifteen physiological measurements during the first 24 h of critical care were used to predict death before hospital discharge. Compared with the conventional simplified acute physiology score (SAPS-II), the proposed multi-task learning model achieved better sensitivity (0.503 ± 0.020 versus 0.365 ± 0.021), when predictions were made based on the same 24-h observation period. The multi-task learning model is recommended to be updated daily with at least a 6-h observation period, in order for it to perform similarly or better than the SAPS-II. In the future, the need for intervention can be considered as another task to further optimize the performance of the multi-task learning model.

Assessment of endoscopic Doppler to guide hemostasis in high risk peptic ulcer bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Rebleeding or emergency surgery in failed endoscopic therapy of peptic ulcer bleeding are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The clinical benefit of an endoscopic Doppler (ED) examination prior to endoscopic injection therapy was evaluated in high risk ulcer patients for rebleeding episode. Standard injection therapy (non-Doppler (ND)) was compared with targeted injection therapy after examination of the supplying vessel in the ulcer base by the ED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (Forrest Ia-IIa; Rockall score of 5 or higher) were included in the study. Patients were assigned to ED or ND group with conventional therapy by chance. In the ND group injection was directed by the visual aspect of the ulcer, whereas in ED therapy was directed by ED.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were allocated to the ED group, and 25 to the ND group, respectively. No significant differences in patient or ulcer characteristics were observed regarding ulcer size, localization, Forrest classification or endoscopic treatment. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 7/35 (20%) in the ED group and in 13/25 (52%) of patients in the ND group (p = .013). Fewer ED patients needed surgery for rebleeding (1/35 vs. 6/25; p = .017). Bleeding related, but not all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ED group (1/35 vs. 6/25, p = .017).

DISCUSSION

In this comparative analysis, use of ED to guide hemostatic therapy was associated with a significant reduction in recurrence of bleeding, surgical intervention and bleeding associated mortality.

Role of endoscopy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding in real clinical practice: An evidence-based review

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding is usually segregated from lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and guidelines for gastrointestinal bleeding are divided into two separate sections, they may not be distinguished from each other in clinical practice. Most patients are first observed with signs of bleeding such as hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia. When a patient with these symptoms presents to the emergency room, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment are considered together with appropriate initial resuscitation. Especially, in cases of variceal bleeding, it is important for the prognosis that the endoscopy is performed immediately after the patient stabilizes. In cases of suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding, full colonoscopy after bowel preparation is effective in distinguishing the cause of the bleeding and treating with hemostasis. The therapeutic aspect of endoscopy, using the mechanical method alone or injection with a certain modality rather than injection alone, can increase the success rate of bleeding control. Therefore, it is important to consider the origin of bleeding and how to approach it. In this article, we aim to review the role of endoscopy in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding in a real clinical setting.

A randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy of early video capsule endoscopy with standard of care in the approach to nonhematemesis GI bleeding (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients presenting with nonhematemesis GI bleeding (NHGIB) represent a diagnostic challenge for physicians. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits of deployment of a video capsule soon after admission in the management of patients presenting with melena, hematochezia, or severe anemia compared with standard of care management.

METHODS

Patients admitted with NHGIB were randomized and placed into 1 of 2 study groups. In the experimental group, patients ingested a video capsule soon after admission to the hospital. These patients had further endoscopic workup based on the findings from the capsule. Patients in the control group underwent endoscopic evaluation (ie, upper endoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and/or colonoscopy) to identify the source of bleeding as directed by the attending gastroenterologist's interpretation of their clinical presentation. The primary endpoint for this study was the rate of localization of bleeding during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were included in this study: 45 randomized to the standard of care arm and 42 to the early capsule arm. A bleeding source was localized in 64.3% of the patients in the early capsule arm and in 31.1% of the patients in the standard of care arm (P < .01). The likelihood of endoscopic localization of bleeding over time was greater for patients receiving early capsule endoscopy compared with those in the standard of care arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients admitted to the hospital for NHGIB, early capsule endoscopy is a safe and effective alternative for the detection of the source of bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02442830.).

Timing of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy does not influence short-term outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

AIM

To examine the association between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 274 consecutive patients admitted with acute esophageal variceal bleeding of two tertiary hospitals in Korea. We adjusted confounding factors using the Cox proportional hazards model and the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method. The primary outcome was the mortality of patients within 6 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients received urgent endoscopy (i.e., ≤ 12 h after admission), and 101 patients received non-urgent endoscopy (> 12 h after admission). The 6-wk mortality rate was 22.5% in the urgent endoscopy group and 29.7% in the non-urgent endoscopy group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups before (P = 0.266) and after IPW (P = 0.639). The length of hospital stay was statistically different between the urgent group and non-urgent group (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups (8.1% vs 7.9%, P = 0.960). In multivariate analyses, timing of endoscopy was not associated with 6-wk mortality (hazard ratio, 1.297; 95% confidence interval, 0.806-2.089; P = 0.284).

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding, the timing of endoscopy may be independent of short-term mortality.

Advances in management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review new advances in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of various scoring systems in combination with video capsule endoscopy assists in stratifying and managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. New techniques such as thermocoagulation and hemoclips are useful to treat bleeding.

SUMMARY

The advancement of methods and procedures in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has decreased mortality of patients presenting with this type of hemorrhage. In this chapter, we will be discussing various scores to stratify nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and techniques to stop bleeding.

Endoscopy Timing in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background/Aims

The role of very early (≤12 hours) endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is controversial. We aimed to compare results of very early and early (12–24 hours) endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding demonstrating low-risk versus high-risk features and nonvariceal versus variceal bleeding.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients with nonvariceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death, rebleeding, or need for surgery or intensive care unit admission. Endoscopy timing was defined as very early and early. We performed the analysis in two subgroups: (1) high-risk vs. low-risk patients and (2) variceal vs. nonvariceal bleeding.

Results

A total of 102 patients were included, of whom 59.8% underwent urgent endoscopy. Patients who underwent very early endoscopy received endoscopic therapy more frequently (p=0.001), but there was no improvement in other clinical outcomes. Furthermore, patients at low risk and with nonvariceal bleeding who underwent very early endoscopy had a higher risk of the composite outcome.

Conclusions

Very early endoscopy does not seem to be associated with improved clinical outcomes and may lead to poorer outcomes in specific populations with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The actual benefit of very early endoscopy remains controversial and should be further clarified.

Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.

Advances in the Therapy of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important medical emergency. Important recent advances are reviewed. These include further support for a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70-90 g/L. The Glasgow-Blatchford score remains the most useful assessment score for identifying the lowest risk patients suitable for outpatient management and predicting the need for intervention. Newer scores such as the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestive score (PNED) may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin improves outcomes and is underused. A new disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Over-the-scope clips and haemostatic powders appear to have some role as endoscopic salvage therapies. Non- H. pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers contribute to an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

Initial Assessment, Risk Stratification, and Early Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Inhospital mortality from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved with advances in medical and endoscopy therapy. Initial management includes resuscitation, hemodynamic monitoring, proton pump inhibitor therapy, and restrictive blood transfusion. Risk stratification scores help triage bleeding severity and provide prognosis. Upper endoscopy is recommended within 24 hours of presentation; select patients at lowest risk may be effectively treated as outpatients. Emergent endoscopy within 12 hours does not improve clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding, or need for surgery, despite an increased use of endoscopic treatment. There may be a benefit to emergent endoscopy in patients with evidence of active bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in neck of femur fracture patients: a single tertiary centre experience

This study aimed to identify the incidence of perioperative acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in our hip fracture patients; to evaluate the characteristics, management and clinical outcomes of these patients; and to explore risk factors and protective factors. Of the 1691 consecutive patients admitted for surgical management of hip fractures, 11 (0.65%) had UGIB and a further four patients for each case were selected as controls for evaluation of risk factors and protective factors. Pre-existing peptic ulcer disease was identified as a risk factor for acute UGIB (odds ratio 7.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-54.9). This study reported a very low incidence of UGIB in hip fracture patients. Despite being a high-risk population, timely endoscopic evaluation can be safely undertaken to optimise patient outcome. When risk factors such as history of peptic ulcer disease are present, additional precaution including gastro-protective agent and nutritional support should be undertaken.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is bleeding that develops in the oesophagus, stomach or proximal duodenum. Peptic ulcers, caused by Helicobacter pylori infection or use of NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin (LDA), are the most common cause. Although the incidence and mortality associated with NVUGIB have been decreasing owing to considerable advances in the prevention and management of NVUGIB over the past 20 years, it remains a common clinical problem with an annual incidence of ∼67 per 100,000 individuals in the United States in 2012. NVUGIB is a medical emergency, and mortality is in the range ∼1-5%. After resuscitation and initial assessment, early (within 24 hours) diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy together with intragastric pH control with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) form the basis of treatment. With a growing ageing population treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications, the clinical management of NVUGIB is complex as the risk between gastrointestinal bleeding events and adverse cardiovascular events needs to be balanced. The best clinical approach includes identification of risk factors and prevention of bleeding; available strategies include continuous treatment with PPIs or H. pylori eradication in those at increased risk of developing NVUGIB. Treatment with PPIs and/or use of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs should be implemented in those patients at risk of NVUGIB who need NSAIDs and/or LDA.