Role of enhanced multi-detector-row computed tomography before urgent endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Value of multidetector computed tomography angiography in severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective study in a referral bleeding unit

BACKGROUND

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common gastroenterological emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently recommended as the gold standard modality for both diagnosis and treatment. As historically played a limited role in the diagnosis of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography is emerging as a promising tool in the diagnosis of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially for severe cases. However, to date, evidence concerning the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnosis is still lacking.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the diagnostic performance of emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography performed prior to any diagnostic modality or following urgent upper endoscopy to identify the status, the site, and the underlying etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

Institutional databases were reviewed in order to identify severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients who were admitted to our bleeding unit and were referred for emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography prior to any hemostatic treatment (< 3 h) or following (< 3 h) endoscopy, between December 2019 and October 2022. The study aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography to detect the status, the site, and the etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding with endoscopy, digital subtraction angiography, surgery, pathology, or a combination of them as reference standards.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (38 men, median age 69 years [range 25-96]) were enrolled. The overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to diagnose bleeding status were 77.8% (95% CI: 65.5-87.3), 40% (95% CI: 5.3-85.3), and 75% (95% CI: 63.0-84.7), respectively. Finally, the overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity to identify the bleeding site and the bleeding etiology were 92.4% (95% CI: 83.2-97.5) and 79% (95% CI: 66.8-88.3), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of most non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography seems to be a feasible and effective modality in detecting the site, the status, and the etiology of severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It may play a crucial role in the management of selected cases of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially those clinically severe and/or secondary to rare and extraordinary rare sources, effectively guiding timing and type of treatment. However, further large prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the diagnostic process of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Role of multidetector computed tomography angiography in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A comprehensive review

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common gastroenterological emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently recommended as the gold standard modality for both diagnosis and treatment, with computed tomography traditionally playing a limited role in the diagnosis of acute NVUGIB. Following the introduction of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), this modality is emerging as a promising tool in the diagnosis of NVUGIB. However, to date, evidence concerning the role of MDCT in the NVUGIB diagnosis is still lacking. The aim of our study was to review the current evidence concerning the role of MDCT in the diagnosis of acute NVUGIB.

Clinical outcomes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding according to the risk indicated by Glasgow-Blatchford risk score-computed tomography score in the emergency room

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a significant emergency situation with a mortality rate of 2% to 10%. Therefore, initial risk stratification is important for proper management. We aimed to evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for risk stratification in patients with acute UGI bleeding in the emergency room (ER).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with UGI bleeding in the ER. Glasgow-Blatchford risk score-computed tomography (GBS-CT) was assessed using a combination of GBS and the MDCT scan scoring system.

RESULTS

Of the 297 patients with UGI bleeding, 124 (41.8%) underwent abdominal MDCT. Among them, 90.3% were classified as high-risk by GBS, and five patients died (4.0%). Rebleeding occurred in nine patients (7.3%). The high-risk GBS-CT group had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (10.5% in high-risk vs. 1.4% in moderate risk vs. 0% in low-risk, p = 0.049), transfusion amount (p &lt; 0.001), and endoscopic hemostasis (p &lt; 0.001) compared to the moderate- and low-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding MDCT scans to the existing validated prognosis model when predicting the risk of UGI bleeding in patients in the ER plays a significant role in determining in-hospital mortality, transfusions, and the need for endoscopic hemostasis.

Usefulness of contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography in identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective study of patients admitted to the emergency department

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of clinical deterioration worldwide. A large number of patients with UGIB cannot be diagnosed through endoscopy, which is normally the diagnostic method of choice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for patients with suspected UGIB. In this retrospective observational study of 386 patients, we compared contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic MDCT to endoscopy to analyze the performance of MDCT in identifying the status, location of origin, and etiology of UGIB. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were examined. In the assessment of bleeding status, MDCT was able to accurately identify 32.9% (21.9–43.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of patients with active bleeding, 27.4% (18.9–35.9, 95% CI) of patients with recent bleeding, and 94.8% (91.8–97.8, 95% CI) of patients without bleeding evidence (P<0.001). MDCT showed an accuracy of 60.9%, 60.6%, and 50.9% in identifying bleeding in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, respectively (P = 0.4028). The accuracy in differentiating ulcerative, cancerous, and variceal bleeding was 58.3%, 65.9%, and 56.6%, respectively (P = 0.6193). MDCT has limited use as a supportive screening method to identify the presence of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Although the first approach for peptic ulcer bleeding is endoscopic hemostasis, quick determination of a hemostatic strategy is important in patients with vitals indicating shock. However, the unsuccessful factors for endoscopic treatment have yet to be sufficiently examined. We aimed to investigate the factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in severe peptic ulcer bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Unsuccessful factors were retrospectively investigated in 150 eligible patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for shock-presenting peptic ulcer bleeding at our critical care center between April 2007 and March 2021.

RESULTS

There were 123 and 27 cases of successful and unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis, respectively. Causative diseases included gastric ulcer bleeding in 124 patients (82.7%) and duodenal ulcer bleeding in 26 patients (17.3%). Shock index (SI) (1.46 vs. 1.60) (p = .013), exposed blood vessel diameter (1.4 mm vs. 3.1 mm) (p < .001) identified on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), duodenal ulcer bleeding (p = .012), and Forrest classification Ia (p = .004) were extracted as independent factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis. In receiving operating curve analysis, when the cut-off value for the SI was set at 1.53, the sensitivity and specificity were 70.4% and 63.4%, respectively. When the cut-off value for the exposed blood vessel diameter was set at 1.9 mm, these were 88.9% and 83.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When these factors (SI ≥ 1.53, exposed blood vessel diameter ≥1.9 mm identified on CE-CT, duodenal ulcer bleeding, and Forrest Ia) are present in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding, non-endoscopic hemostasis, such as interventional radiology (IVR) and surgery, should be considered.

Management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients: the experience of a tertiary university hospital

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is the main cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Endoscopic treatment and acid suppression with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are most important in the management of PUB and these treatments have reduced mortality. However, elderly patients sometimes have a poor prognostic outcome due to severe comorbidities.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 504 cases with acute non-variceal UGIB who were examined in our hospital, in order to reveal the risk factor of a poor outcome in elderly patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-four cases needed hemostasis; 11 cases had unsuccessful endoscopic treatments; 31 cases had re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis. Forty-three cases died within 30 days after the initial urgent endoscopy, but only seven cases died from bleeding. Elderly patients aged over 65 years had more severe comorbidities, and were prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents, more frequently, compared with non-elderly patients. The significant risk factor of needing hemostatic therapy was the taking of two or more NSAIDs, antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents. The most important risk of a poor outcome in elderly patients was various kinds of severe comorbidities. And so, it is important to predict such an outcome in these cases. AIMS65 is a simple and relatively useful scoring system that predicts the risk of a poor outcome in UGIB. High-score patients via AIMS65 were associated with a high mortality rate because of death from comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

The elderly patients in whom were prescribed two or more NSAIDs, antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents, should have UGIB prevented using a PPI. The most significant risk of a poor outcome in elderly patients was severe comorbidities. We recommend that elderly patients with UGIB should be estimated as having a poor outcome as soon as possible via the risk scoring system AIMS65.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and early patient management of esophagogastric hemorrhage

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a potentially life-threatening complication of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Combination therapy with vasoactive drugs and endoscopic variceal ligation is the first-line treatment in the management of AVB after adequate hemodynamic resuscitation. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early resuscitation, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, targeting of conservative goals for blood transfusion, and application of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in patients with AVB have further improved the prognosis of AVB. This article discusses the epidemiology, diagnosis, and nonendoscopic management of AVB.