Colonic diverticular bleeding and predictors of the length of hospitalization: An observational study

LONG-HOSP Score: A Novel Predictive Score for Length of Hospital Stay in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding - A Multicenter Nationwide Study

INTRODUCTION

Length of stay (LOS) in hospital affects cost, patient quality of life, and hospital management; however, existing gastrointestinal bleeding models applicable at hospital admission have not focused on LOS. We aimed to construct a predictive model for LOS in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 8,547 patients emergently hospitalized for ALGIB at 49 hospitals (the CODE BLUE-J Study). A predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed using the baseline characteristics of 7,107 patients and externally validated in 1,440 patients. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis assessed the impact of additional variables during hospitalization on LOS.

RESULTS

Focusing on baseline characteristics, a predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed, the LONG-HOSP score, which consisted of low body mass index, laboratory data, old age, nondrinker status, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, facility with ≥800 beds, heart rate, oral antithrombotic agent use, symptoms, systolic blood pressure, performance status, and past medical history. The score showed relatively high performance in predicting prolonged hospital stay and high hospitalization costs (area under the curve: 0.70 and 0.73 for derivation, respectively, and 0.66 and 0.71 for external validation, respectively). Next, we focused on in-hospital management. Diagnosis of colitis or colorectal cancer, rebleeding, and the need for blood transfusion, interventional radiology, and surgery prolonged LOS, regardless of the LONG-HOSP score. By contrast, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

At hospital admission for ALGIB, our novel predictive model stratified patients by their risk of prolonged hospital stay. During hospitalization, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

Differences between patients with inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: An observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The clinical severity and course of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) are believed to differ between inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset cases, but no reports have investigated these issues in detail. We aimed to evaluate the clinical differences between inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset ALGIB.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who had undergone emergency colonoscopy for ALGIB were retrospectively reviewed. The severity was evaluated using the NOBLADS score. Patients with obvious ALGIB relapse and/or persistent iron-deficiency anemia after emergency colonoscopy were considered to exhibit a poor clinical course.

RESULTS

We reviewed 723 patients with ALGIB and divided them into the inpatient-onset cohort (172 patients) and outpatient-onset cohort (551 patients). Compared with the outpatient-onset cohort, the inpatient-onset cohort had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a poor clinical course (51.2% vs 21.6%; P < 0.001) and a significantly higher mean NOBLADS score (3.6 ± 1.1 vs 2.5 ± 1.0; P < 0.001). The most common bleeding source was acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcer (52.3%) in the inpatient-onset cohort and colonic diverticular bleeding (29.4%) in the outpatient-onset cohort. Multivariate analysis showed that a platelet count < 15 × 104 /μL and albumin concentration < 3 g/dL were significantly associated with a poor clinical course in the inpatient-onset cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical course was significantly worse in the inpatient-onset cohort than in the outpatient-onset cohort. The bleeding source, clinical characteristics, and clinical course differed between the inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset cohorts. The clinical course in the inpatient-onset cohort may depend on the patient's condition at ALGIB onset.

Optimal candidates for early colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Early colonoscopy has not shown any advantages over elective colonoscopy in reducing the risk of early rebleeding (≤ 30 days) after acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB). Considering the heterogeneity among patients with ALGIB, we sought to evaluate appropriate candidates for early colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 592 patients with ALGIB were enrolled, and the clinical outcomes of early colonoscopy were investigated. Thereafter, the participants were divided into two groups: the recent bleeding group (n = 445), with hematochezia 0-6 h before hospital arrival, and non-recent bleeding group (n = 147). The clinical outcomes yielded by early colonoscopy were assessed in each group.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis including the entire population revealed that early colonoscopy (< 24 h) did not reduce the risk of early rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.39). However, in the subgroup analysis, early colonoscopy independently reduced the risk of early rebleeding in the recent bleeding group (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94). Moreover, a reduction in the need for radiological or surgical intervention (AOR, 0.34), transfusion (AOR, 0.62), and prolonged hospitalization (AOR, 0.42), as well as improvement in diagnostic yield (AOR, 1.78) and endoscopic treatment rates (AOR, 1.66), were observed. Early colonoscopy did not improve the outcomes of the non-recent bleeding group.

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy is not required for all patients with ALGIB. However, it may be suitable for those with hematochezia 0-6 h before hospital arrival, as it reduces early rebleeding and improves clinical outcomes.

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 of urgent colonoscopy for colonic diverticular bleeding: A propensity score-matched analysis using a nationwide database in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is considered to have good prognosis with conservative therapy, some cases are severe. The efficacy of urgent colonoscopy for CDB and clinical factors affecting CDB prognosis are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of urgent colonoscopy for CDB and identify risk factors for unfavorable events, including in-hospital death during admission, owing to CDB.

METHODS

We collected CDB patients' data using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database system. We divided eligible patients into urgent and elective colonoscopy groups using propensity score matching and compared endoscopic hemostasis and in-hospital death rates and length of hospital stay. We also conducted logistic regression analysis to identify clinical factors affecting CBD clinical events, including in-hospital death, a relatively rare CDB complication.

RESULTS

Urgent colonoscopy reduced the in-hospital death rate (0.35% vs 0.58%, P = 0.033) and increased the endoscopic hemostasis rate (3.0% vs 1.7%, P < 0.0001) compared with elective colonoscopy. Length of hospitalization was shorter in the urgent than in the elective colonoscopy group (8 vs 9 days, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis also revealed that urgent colonoscopy reduced in-hospital death (odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.97, P = 0.036) and increased endoscopic hemostasis (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.53-2.22, P <  0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Urgent colonoscopy for CDB may facilitate identification of the bleeding site and reduce in-hospital death. The necessity and appropriate timing of urgent colonoscopy should be considered based on patients' condition.

Unnecessary Blood Transfusion Prolongs Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Who Undergo Free Fibular Flap Reconstruction of Mandibulofacial Defects: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

PURPOSE

Blood transfusion is usually a common clinical practice in flap transfer surgery because of its invasive hemorrhagic nature. Although intraoperative restrictive transfusion policy was suggested in vascularized fibular flap reconstruction, its clinical evidence was still insufficient. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the influence of intraoperative blood transfusion on length of stay (LOS) after vascularized fibular flap reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent vascularized fibular flap reconstruction of mandibulofacial defects between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors that influenced LOS. The identified factors and other perioperative factors that may influence transfusion decision were included in propensity score matching to explore the independent impact of intraoperative blood transfusion on LOS.

RESULTS

About 375 patients were included, and the median LOS was 14.00 (12.00, 19.00) days in our study. Multivariate analysis suggested that duration of surgery, fluid infusion speed for more than 24 hours on operative day, intraoperative blood transfusion, and postoperative complication were associated with prolonged LOS (P < .05). Propensity score matching was performed, and the difference of LOS between the matched transfused and nontransfused group was statistically significant (15.00 [12.75, 20.00] vs 14.00 [11.75, 16.25]; P < .001). The comparison between the matched and unmatched transfused patients indicated that the former has less radiotherapy history, blood loss, and higher preoperative hemoglobin (P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative blood transfusion is independently associated with prolonged LOS in patients without preoperative anemia, radiotherapy history, or intraoperative massive hemorrhage who undergo vascularized fibular flap reconstruction. Efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary intraoperative blood transfusion, and our results support consideration of a restrictive transfusion policy in these patients.

Urgent Versus Standard Colonoscopy for Management of Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common indication for hospitalization. However, the optimum timing of colonoscopy following patient presentation remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of urgent versus standard colonoscopy timing on management of acute LGIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed were searched up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared patients with hematochezia receiving urgent (<24 h) versus standard (>24 h) colonoscopy. Nonrandomized observational studies were also included based on the same criteria for additional analysis. Pooled estimates were calculated using random effects meta-analyses and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency statistic. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Of 3782 potentially relevant studies, 4 randomized controlled trials involving 463 patients met inclusion criteria. Urgent colonoscopy did not differ significantly to standard timing with respect to length of stay (LOS), units of blood transfused, rate of additional intervention required, or mortality. Colonoscopy-related outcomes such as patient complications, rebleeding rates, and diagnosis of bleeding source did not differ between groups. However, meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies (9 studies, n=111,950) revealed a significantly higher rate of mortality and complications requiring surgery in the standard group and shorter LOS in the urgent group. Overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low in the majority of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of colonoscopy in acute LGIB may not significantly affect patient outcomes. Timing should therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis.