Outcomes of endoscopic intervention for overt GI bleeding in severe thrombocytopenia

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.

Safety of Endoscopic Procedures in Thrombocytopenia and Neutropenia: Embracing Assurance

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the post-endoscopic adverse events in patients with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Current guidelines do not provide clear direction on this topic.

AIM

We explore the pooled rates of safety and adverse effects of endoscopic interventions in thrombocytopenia and neutropenia patients via a systematic review & meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases, including Medline, Scopus, and Embase, were searched (in May 2023) using specific terms for studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of endoscopy in patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model. I2% heterogeneity was used to assess the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Six studies and four studies evaluated endoscopic outcomes in patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia respectively with mean age was 56 years. The pooled rate of total post-biopsy bleeding and total post-polypectomy bleeding among patients with thrombocytopenia was 4% (95% CI 1-11), I2 = 84%, and 12% (95% CI 3-36) I2 = 43%. The total rate of post procedure-related bleeding in thrombocytopenia was 5% (95% CI 1-14) I2 = 95%. The pooled rate of post-endoscopic infection (fever from any cause, bacteremia) in neutropenia was 10% (95% CI 3-28%) I2 = 96%. On sub analysis, the pooled rate of bacteremia and 30 days all-cause mortality in neutropenia was 4% (95% CI 3-5%) I2 = 0% and 13% (95% CI 4-34%) I2 = 95% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our data supports the notion that endoscopic procedures are safe for neutropenic, thrombocytopenic patients with suitable indications and reasonable functional status and have an acceptable risk/benefit ratio.

Risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia

Background

Reports suggest that the rate of adverse events (AEs) post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to be as high as 10%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common after post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

Objective

The aim of this study was to characterize the incidence of bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia following ES.

Design

Retrospective observational cohort study.

Methods

Patients with thrombocytopenia (defined as <150,000 platelets/μL) who underwent ES between May 2017 and December 2020 were identified at a tertiary care medical center. The incidence of immediate (intraprocedural oozing >5 min or requiring intervention) or delayed (clinical bleeding with associated hemoglobin drop within 14 days) post-ES bleeding was determined via manual chart review.

Results

A total of 221 patients with a mean platelet count of 108,000 ± 13,000 platelets/μL underwent ERCP with ES. Immediate bleeding occurred in 11 (5%) patients with no significant drop in hemoglobin or transfusion requirement. Two patients (0.9%), both of whom were noted to have immediate bleeding, also developed delayed bleeding. Presence of malignancy was associated with an increased risk of bleeding (36.4% versus 11.4%, p = 0.037) while platelet count was not.

Conclusion

In a cohort of patients with thrombocytopenia, rates of immediate and delayed bleeding are similar to previously reported AE rates of ES in the general patient population. Careful attention should be given to patients with a history of active malignancy as well as those who develop immediate bleeding as they appear to be at increased risk for bleeding complications.

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.

Overt gastrointestinal bleeding following haploidentical haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: incidence, outcomes and predictive models

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) accounts for a significant proportion of life-threatening bleeding cases occurring after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). However, data on GIB after haploidentical HSCT (haplo-HSCT) are not available. A total of 3180 patients received haplo-HSCT at Peking University People's Hospital from January 2015 to November 2019, and GIB occurred in 188 of these patients (incidence of 5.9%). Platelet counts <30 × 10⁹/L, viral hepatitis, acute kidney injury (AKI), gastrointestinal disease or bleeding before HSCT and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) were determined to be significant risk factors for the occurrence of GIB after haplo-HSCT. Grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), AKI, thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and gastrointestinal disease or bleeding before HSCT were significantly related to mortality in patients with GIB after haplo-HSCT. The predictive models developed for the occurrence and mortality of GIB performed well in terms of discrimination, and they might assist clinicians with personalised strategies for GIB prevention and treatment in patients after haplo-HSCT.

A systematic literature review on the use of platelet transfusions in patients with thrombocytopenia

Objective: Investigate globally, current treatment patterns, benefit-risk assessments, humanistic, societal and economic burden of platelet transfusion (PT). Methods: Publications from 1998 to June 27, 2018 were identified, based on databases searches including MEDLINE®; Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data from studies meeting pre-specified criteria were extracted and validated by independent reviewers. Data were obtained for efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); data for epidemiology, treatment patterns, effectiveness, safety, humanistic and societal burden from real-world evidence (RWE) studies; and economic data from both. Results: A total of 3425 abstracts, 194 publications (190 studies) were included. PT use varied widely, from 0%-100% of TCP patients; 1.7%-24.5% in large studies (>1000 patients). Most were used prophylactically rather than therapeutically. 5 of 43 RCTs compared prophylactic PT with no intervention, with mixed results. In RWE studies PT generally increased platelet count (PC). This increase varied by patient characteristics and hence did not always translate into a clinically significant reduction in bleeding risk. Safety concerns included infection risk, alloimmunization and refractoriness with associated cost burden. Discussion: In RCTs and RWE studies there was significant heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures. In RWE studies, patients receiving PT may have been at higher risk than those not receiving PT creating potential bias. There were limited data on humanistic and societal burden. Conclusion: Although PTs are used widely for increasing PC in TCP, it is important to understand the limitations of PTs, and to explore the use of alternative treatment options where available.

Clinical Implications of Thrombocytopenia for the Cirrhotic Patient

Thrombocytopenia is a frequent complication in patients with cirrhosis. As many as 84% of patients with cirrhosis have thrombocytopenia, and it is an independent variable indicative of advanced disease and poor prognosis. Although there is great concern that it may aggravate bleeding during surgical procedures, there is limited evidence to inform decisions regarding the treatment of cirrhotic patients with thrombocytopenia undergoing invasive procedures. Finally, there is evidence that platelets play a significant role in liver regeneration. In this report, the clinical implications of thrombocytopenia in cirrhotic patients are reviewed. The utility of platelet counts in the prognosis of cirrhosis and relationship to complications of advanced liver disease, including portal hypertension, esophageal varices, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The impact of low platelet counts on bleeding complications during invasive procedures is outlined. Finally, the role of platelets and potential adverse impact in liver regeneration is reviewed.

Safety of endoscopy in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cancer patients are prone to thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, which increase the risk of bleeding and infection. We assessed the safety of endoscopic procedures in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia.

METHODS

We studied consecutive cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia who underwent endoscopic procedures from 2010 through 2015. Neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <1000 cells/μL, and thrombocytopenia as a platelet count <100 × 10³/μL. Univariate and multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to assess factors associated with risk of adverse events (AEs) or death.

RESULTS

We identified 588 patients who underwent 783 procedures; 608 procedures were performed in the setting of thrombocytopenia and 675 procedures in the setting of neutropenia. Concurrent neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were recorded in 500 endoscopies. Twenty-four patients (4.1%) experienced infectious AEs, whereas 29 (4.9%) experienced bleeding AEs within 1 week of the procedure. On multivariate analysis, platelet count ≤50 × 10³/μL was associated with risk of bleeding AEs. In contrast, poor performance status was associated with increased risk of infection AEs (P < .01). No association was observed between low ANC and infectious AEs. Poor performance status (P < .01) and platelet count ≤100 × 10³/μL (P < .05) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality. A persistent platelet count <20 × 10³/μL after the procedure, with a baseline platelet count of ≤20 × 10³/μL before the procedure, was associated with significant risk of bleeding AEs compared with a platelet count >20 × 10³/μL after the procedure (P < .01); furthermore, if the platelet count increased to >50 × 10³/μL after the procedure, the bleeding risk after the procedure was greatly reduced (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic procedures are relatively safe in cancer patients with platelet count >50 × 10³/μL. Nevertheless, a platelet count of ≥20 × 10³/μL could be an appropriate threshold for platelet transfusion if 50 × 10³/μL is difficult to achieve. The functional status of the patient, in the absence of the need for urgent or necessary endoscopic interventions, should be considered when deciding whether to perform endoscopy. The risk of procedure and the ANC did not seem to affect the outcomes.