Gastrointestinal hemorrhage: is the surgeon obsolete?

Clinical Risk Characteristics of Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Severity: A Multivariable Risk Analysis

Background

Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) is one of the common clinical manifestations encountered in most emergency departments. Patient characteristics indicating UGIH severity in developing countries may be different from those in developed countries. The present study was designed to explore clinical prognostic indicators for UGIH severity.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a university affiliated tertiary hospital in Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand. Medical folders of patients with UGIH were reviewed. Patients were grouped into 3 severity levels, based on criteria proposed by The American College of Surgeon. Pre-defined prognostic indicators were compared. The prognostic indicators for UGIH severity were analyzed by a multivariable continuation ratio ordinal logistic regression and presented with odds ratios.

Results

From 1,043 eligible medical folders, 984 (94.3%) complete folders were used in analysis. There were 241, 631 and 112 patients in the mild, moderate and severe UGIH groups. Six independent indicators of severe UGIH were, hemoglobin < 100 g/dL (OR = 13.82, 95% CI = 9.40 to 20.33, P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (OR = 11.01, 95% CI = 7.41 to 16.36, P < 0.001), presence of hepatic failure (OR = 5.50, 95% CI = 1.14 to26.64, P = 0.037), presence of cirrhosis (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.32 to 3.11, P = 0.001), blood urea nitrogen ≥ 35 mmol/L (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.25 to 2.40, P = 0.001), and pulse rate ≥ 100 per minute (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.45, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Pulse rate ≥ 100 per minute, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, blood urea nitrogen ≥ 35 mmol/L, presence of cirrhosis and presence of hepatic failure are prognostic indicators for an increase in UGIH severity levels. They are potentially useful in UGIH risk stratification.

Comparison of infusion or low-dose proton pump inhibitor treatments in upper gastrointestinal system bleeding

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

AIM

To compare the treatment effects of continuous infusion and low-dose esomeprazole therapies in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study compared continuous infusion of esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg∕h continuous infusion for 72 h) and low-dose esomeprazole (40 mg twice daily IV) treatments in GI bleeding patients with peptic ulcer presenting a high risk of re-bleeding, who were administered a successful endoscopic homeostasis. The primary end point was the occurrence of re-bleeding during hospitalization and within one month of discharge. Secondary outcomes were defined as duration of hospitalization, need of transfusion, surgical treatment, and mortality rate. After 72 h, both groups were switched to oral esomeprazole therapy for one-month.

RESULTS

A hundred thirty-two subjects were enrolled. Re-bleeding occurred in 11 (16.7%) patients in the infusion therapy group and in 12 (18.2%) patients in the low-dose group (P=0.819) within the first 72 h. No patient experienced re-bleeding in the first month following discharge. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion need, durations of hospitalization, need for surgery and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

PPI infusion therapy following endoscopic hemostasis treatment was not found superior to low-dose PPI therapy in the terms of re-bleeding, need of surgery and mortality.

Characteristics and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage remains a problem in spite of improved diagnosis and management. There is sparse knowledge of recent epidemiology and outcomes. We wanted to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage over a 4-year period in a tertiary referral hospital.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage to John Hunter Hospital between August 2004 and December 2008. Variables of interest included age, gender, co-morbidities, and time to endoscopy. Main outcomes included etiology, treatment, and survival. Variceal and non-variceal bleeds were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

There were 792 admissions from 734 unique patients (61% male) with a mean age of 66 years. The most frequent causes of non-variceal bleeds (88%) included ulcers 265 (33%); Mallory Weiss tear 91 (11%); esophagitis 60 (8%), and malignancy 29 (4%). Most patients had one or more co-morbidity (74%). Transfusion was not employed in 41%. Overall mortality was 4.0% (5.4% in the variceal and 3.9% in the non-variceal group). Only 1.9% of patients had surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are overall elderly with significant co-morbidities. Our overall mortality and surgery rates are lower than in previously published international data.

Noninvasive evaluation of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding: comparison between contrast-enhanced MDCT and 99mTc-labeled RBC scintigraphy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare contrast-enhanced MDCT and (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scanning for the evaluation of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Over 17 months, 55 patients (32 men, 23 women; age range, 21-92 years) were evaluated prospectively with contrast-enhanced MDCT using 100 mL of iopromide 300 mg I/mL. Technetium-99m-labeled RBC scans were obtained on 41 of 55 patients and select patients underwent angiography for attempted embolization. Each imaging technique was reviewed in a blinded fashion for sensitivity for detection of active bleeding as well as the active lower gastrointestinal bleeding location.

RESULTS

Findings were positive on both examinations in eight patients and negative on both examinations in 20 patients. Findings were positive on contrast-enhanced MDCT and negative on (99m)Tc-labeled RBC in two patients; findings were negative on contrast-enhanced MDCT and positive on (99m)Tc-labeled RBC in 11 patients. Statistics showed significant disagreement, with simple agreement = 68.3%, kappa = 0.341, and p = 0.014. Sixteen of 60 (26.7%) contrast-enhanced MDCT scans were positive prospectively, with all accurately localizing the site of bleeding and identification of the underlying lesion in eight of 16 (50%). Nineteen of 41 (46.3%) (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scans were positive. Eighteen of 41 matched patients went on to angiography. In four of these 18 (22.2%) patients, the site of bleeding was confirmed by angiography, but in 14 of 18 (77.8%), the findings were negative.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced MDCT and (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scanning show significant disagreement for evaluation of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Contrast-enhanced MDCT appears effective for detection and localization in cases of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding in which hemorrhage is active at the time of CT.