Outcomes following restrictive or liberal red blood cell transfusion in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Emergency medicine updates: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department. Therefore, it is important for emergency medicine 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 LGIB for the emergency clinician.

DISCUSSION

LGIB is most commonly due to diverticulosis or anorectal disease, though there are a variety of etiologies. The majority of cases resolve spontaneously, but patients can have severe bleeding resulting in hemodynamic instability. Initial evaluation should focus on patient hemodynamics, the severity of bleeding, and differentiating upper gastrointestinal bleeding from LGIB. Factors associated with LGIB include prior history of LGIB, age over 50 years, and presence of blood clots per rectum. Computed tomography angiography is the imaging modality of choice in those with severe bleeding to diagnose the source of bleeding and guide management when embolization is indicated. Among stable patients without severe bleeding, colonoscopy is the recommended modality for diagnosis and management. A transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL hemoglobin is recommended based on recent data and guidelines (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), though patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability should undergo emergent transfusion. Anticoagulation reversal may be necessary. If bleeding does not resolve, embolization or endoscopic therapies are necessary. There are several risk scores that can predict the risk of adverse outcomes; however, these scores should not replace clinical judgment in determining patient disposition.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the time to emergency endoscopy and clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Objectives

To investigate endoscopic management and clinical outcomes in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 332 patients with non-variceal upper GI bleeding who underwent emergency upper GI endoscopy at three hospitals during the pandemic (April 2020-June 2021) and before the pandemic (January 2019-March 2020). The number of emergency upper GI endoscopies, time from hospital arrival to endoscopy, mortality within 30 days, rebleeding within 30 days, interventional radiology (IVR)/surgery requirement, composite outcome, rates of endoscopic hemostasis procedures, and second-look endoscopy were investigated using logistic regression.

Results

Overall, 152 and 180 patients underwent emergency upper GI endoscopies during and before the pandemic, respectively. The mean time from arrival to endoscopy was longer during the pandemic than before it (11.7 vs. 6.1 h, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that mortality within 30 days (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, p = 0.26), rebleeding within 30 days (OR: 0.43, p = 0.17), IVR/surgery requirement (OR: 1.79, p = 0.33), and composite outcome (OR: 0.98, p = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the periods; conversely, endoscopic hemostasis procedures (OR: 0.38, p < 0.01) and second-look endoscopies (OR: 0.04, p < 0.01) were less likely to be performed during the pandemic than before it.

Conclusions

Although the time from arrival to endoscopy was significantly longer during the pandemic, it did not affect mortality and rebleeding.

Review article: Advances in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common emergency with substantial associated morbidity and mortality. Elective colonoscopy plays an essential role in management, with an even more important role for radiology in the acute setting. Recent advances in the management of patients with LGIB warrant review as the management has recently evolved.

AIMS

To provide a comprehensive and updated overview of advances in the approach to patients with LGIB METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to examine the current data for this narrative review supplemented by expert opinion.

RESULTS

The incidence of LGIB is increasing worldwide, partly related to an ageing population and the increasing use of antithrombotics. Diverticulosis continues to be the most common aetiology of LGIB. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification tools, especially the Oakland score, can aid appropriate patient triage. Adequate resuscitation continues to form the basis of management, while appropriate management of antithrombotics is crucial to balance the risk of worsening bleeding against increased cardiovascular risk. Radiological imaging plays an essential role in the diagnosis and treatment of acute LGIB, especially among unstable patients. Colonoscopy remains the gold-standard test for the elective management of stable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of LGIB has evolved significantly in recent years, with a shift towards radiological interventions for unstable patients while reserving elective colonoscopy for stable patients. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimise the outcomes of patients with LGIB.

Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated ACG Guideline

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for hospitalization in the United States and is associated with significant utilization of hospital resources, as well as considerable morbidity and mortality. These revised guidelines implement the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools, thresholds for red blood cell transfusion, reversal agents for patients on anticoagulants, diagnostic testing including colonoscopy and computed tomography angiography (CTA), endoscopic therapeutic options, and management of antithrombotic medications after hospital discharge. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools to identify patients with LGIB at low risk of a hospital-based intervention, the role for reversal agents in patients with life-threatening LGIB on vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants, the increasing role for CTA in patients with severe LGIB, and the management of patients who have a positive CTA. We recommend that most patients requiring inpatient colonoscopy undergo a nonurgent colonoscopy because performing an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation has not been shown to improve important clinical outcomes such as rebleeding. Finally, we provide updated recommendations regarding resumption of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications after cessation of LGIB.

Indications and hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion and iron replacement in adults with gastrointestinal bleeding: An algorithm proposed by gastroenterologists and patient blood management experts

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion has long been the cornerstone of treatment for anemia due to GI bleeding. However, blood is not devoid of potential adverse effects, and it is also a precious resource, with limited supplies in blood banks. Nowadays, all patients should benefit from a patient blood management (PBM) program that aims to minimize blood loss, optimize hematopoiesis (mainly by using iron replacement therapy), maximize tolerance of anemia, and avoid unnecessary transfusions. Integration of PBM into healthcare management reduces patient mortality and morbidity and supports a restrictive RBC transfusion approach by reducing transfusion rates. The European Commission has outlined strategies to support hospitals with the implementation of PBM, but it is vital that these initiatives are translated into clinical practice. To help optimize management of anemia and iron deficiency in adults with acute or chronic GI bleeding, we developed a protocol under the auspices of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, in collaboration with healthcare professionals from 16 hospitals across Spain, including expert advice from different specialties involved in PBM strategies, such as internal medicine physicians, intensive care specialists, and hematologists. Recommendations include how to identify patients who have anemia (or iron deficiency) requiring oral/intravenous iron replacement therapy and/or RBC transfusion (using a restrictive approach to transfusion), and transfusing RBC units 1 unit at a time, with assessment of patients after each given unit (i.e., “don’t give two without review”). The advantages and limitations of oral versus intravenous iron and guidance on the safe and effective use of intravenous iron are also described. Implementation of a PBM strategy and clinical decision-making support, including early treatment of anemia with iron supplementation in patients with GI bleeding, may improve patient outcomes and lower hospital costs.

Comparison of Risk Scores for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Clinical prediction models, or risk scores, can be used to risk stratify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), although the most discriminative score is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify all LGIB risk scores available and compare their prognostic performance.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through August 31, 2021, was conducted. Non-English-language articles were excluded.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational and interventional studies deriving or validating an LGIB risk score for the prediction of a clinical outcome were included. Studies including patients younger than 16 years or limited to a specific patient population or a specific cause of bleeding were excluded. Two investigators independently screened the studies, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were abstracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline independently by 2 investigators and pooled using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Summary diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) determined a priori were calculated for each risk score and outcome combination.

RESULTS

A total of 3268 citations were identified, of which 9 studies encompassing 12 independent cohorts and 4 risk scores (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, no diarrhea, no abdominal tenderness, blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, antiplatelet drug use (nonaspirin), albumin <3.0 g/dL, disease score ≥2 (according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and syncope], and BLEED [ongoing bleeding, low systolic blood pressure, elevated prothrombin time, erratic mental status, and unstable comorbid disease]) were included in the meta-analysis. For the prediction of safe discharge, the AUROC for the Oakland score was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). For major bleeding, the AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) for the Oakland score, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the Strate score, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62) for the NOBLADS score, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for the BLEED score. For transfusion, the AUROC was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) for the Oakland score and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for the NOBLADS score. For hemostasis, the AUROC was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.32-0.40) for the Oakland score, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) for the Strate score, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.20-0.28) for the NOBLADS score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Oakland score was the most discriminative LGIB risk score for predicting safe discharge, major bleeding, and need for transfusion, whereas the Strate score was best for predicting need for hemostasis. This study suggests that these scores can be used to predict outcomes from LGIB and guide clinical care accordingly.

A New Time-Window Prediction Model For Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock Based on Interpretable Machine Learning

ABSTRACT

Early warning prediction of traumatic hemorrhagic shock (THS) can greatly reduce patient mortality and morbidity. We aimed to develop and validate models with different stepped feature sets to predict THS in advance. From the PLA General Hospital Emergency Rescue Database and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III, we identified 604 and 1,614 patients, respectively. Two popular machine learning algorithms (i.e., extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost] and logistic regression) were applied. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to evaluate the performance of the models. By analyzing the feature importance based on XGBoost, we found that features in vital signs (VS), routine blood (RB), and blood gas analysis (BG) were the most relevant to THS (0.292, 0.249, and 0.225, respectively). Thus, the stepped relationships existing in them were revealed. Furthermore, the three stepped feature sets (i.e., VS, VS + RB, and VS + RB + sBG) were passed to the two machine learning algorithms to predict THS in the subsequent T hours (where T = 3, 2, 1, or 0.5), respectively. Results showed that the XGBoost model performance was significantly better than the logistic regression. The model using vital signs alone achieved good performance at the half-hour time window (AUROC = 0.935), and the performance was increased when laboratory results were added, especially when the time window was 1 h (AUROC = 0.950 and 0.968, respectively). These good-performing interpretable models demonstrated acceptable generalization ability in external validation, which could flexibly and rollingly predict THS T hours (where T = 0.5, 1) prior to clinical recognition. A prospective study is necessary to determine the clinical utility of the proposed THS prediction models.

Anticoagulant Reversal in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Review of Treatment Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving anticoagulant therapies, such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), commonly experience gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding as a complication and may require anticoagulant reversal prior to endoscopic treatment. Anticoagulant reversal agents include prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs; including 3 or 4 coagulation factors), plasma, vitamin K, and target-specific DOAC reversal agents (e.g., idarucizumab and andexanet alfa).

AIM

To review current US, as well as international, guidelines for anticoagulant reversal agents in patients on VKAs or DOACs presenting with GI bleeding prior to endoscopy, guideline-based management of coagulation defects, timing of endoscopy, and recommendations for resumption of anticoagulant therapy following hemostasis. Supporting clinical data were also reviewed.

METHODS

This is a narrative review, based on PubMed and Internet searches reporting GI guidelines and supporting clinical data.

RESULTS

GI-specific guidelines state that use of reversal agents should be considered in patients with life-threatening GI bleeding. For VKA patients presenting with an international normalized ratio > 2.5, guidelines recommend PCCs (specifically 4F-PCC), as they may exhibit greater efficacy/safety compared with fresh frozen plasma in reversal of VKA-associated GI bleeding. For DOAC patients, most guidelines recommend targeted specific reversal agents in the setting of GI bleeding; however, PCCs (primarily 4F-PCC) are often listed as another option. Resumption of anticoagulant therapy following cessation of GI bleeding is also recommended to reduce risks of future thromboembolic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of anticoagulant reversal agents in GI bleeding is recognized in guidelines; however, such agents should be reserved for use in truly life-threatening scenarios.

Clinical management and patient outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. A multicenter, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND & AIM

Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management.

METHODS

Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5-4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients.

CONCLUSION

Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT04364412].

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7-9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10: ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Efficacy and Safety of Early vs Elective Colonoscopy for Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We performed a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy and safety of early colonoscopy on outcomes of patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB).

METHODS

We performed an open-label study at 15 hospitals in Japan of 170 patients with ALGIB randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that underwent early colonoscopy (within 24 hours of initial visit to the hospital) or elective colonoscopy (24-96 hours after hospital admission). The primary outcome was identification of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). Secondary outcomes were rebleeding within 30 days, endoscopic treatment success, need for transfusion, length of stay, thrombotic events within 30 days, death within 30 days, and adverse events.

RESULTS

SRH were identified in 17 of 79 patients (21.5%) in the early colonoscopy group vs 17 of 80 patients (21.3%) in the elective colonoscopy group (difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, -12.5 to 13.0; P = .967). Rebleeding within 30 days of hospital admission occurred in 15.3% of patients in the early colonoscopy group and 6.7% of patients in the elective colonoscopy group (difference, 8.6; 95% confidence interval, -1.4 to 18.7); there were no significant differences between groups in successful endoscopic treatment rate, transfusion rate, length of stay, thrombotic events, or death within 30 days. The adverse event of hemorrhagic shock occurred during bowel preparation in no patient in the early group vs 2 patients (2.5%) in the elective colonoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled study, we found that colonoscopy within 24 hours after hospital admission did not increase SRH or reduce rebleeding compared with colonoscopy at 24-96 hours in patients with ALGIB. ClinicalTrials.gov, Numbers: UMIN000021129 and NCT03098173.