The effect of off-hours hospital admission on mortality and clinical outcomes for patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 cohorts

The interaction of patients' physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A national prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The correct time to perform an upper endoscopy is decisive in acutely GI bleeding patients. However, patients' physical status may affect mortality. We speculated that the physical status and procedural time could be the principal factors accountable for death-risk. The primary aim was to verify the interaction between physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality; the secondary aim was to verify the interaction of the physical status and time to endoscopy on the length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals were included. Clinical and endoscopic data were recorded. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and the interaction of adjusted clinical physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality was calculated.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 3.190 patients. The time frames did not interfere with outcomes but influenced LOS. Conversely, the ASA score correlated with mortality, LOS, need for transfusions and rebleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy time should be tailored to the patient's physical. In our experience, ASA 1-2-3 patients can be safely submitted to endoscopy to reduce the LOS; on the contrary, keen attention should be paid to ASA4 patients, following the 'not too early-not too late' rule (12-24 h from admission).

Learning curve of achieving competency in emergency endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how much experience is necessary?

OBJECTIVES

The management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has seen rapid advancements with revolutionising innovations. However, insufficient data exist on the necessary number of emergency endoscopies needed to achieve competency in haemostatic interventions.

DESIGN

We retrospectively analysed all oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage performed between 2015 and 2022 at our university hospital. A learning curve was created by plotting the number of previously performed oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage against the treatment failure rate, defined as failed haemostasis, rebleeding and necessary surgical or radiological intervention.

RESULTS

The study population included 787 cases with a median age of 66 years. Active bleeding was detected in 576 cases (73.2%). Treatment failure occurred in 225 (28.6%) cases. The learning curve showed a marked decline in treatment failure rates after nine oesophagogastroduodenoscopies had been performed by the respective endoscopists followed by a first plateau between 20 and 50 procedures. A second decline was observed after 51 emergency procedures followed by a second plateau. Endoscopists with experience of <10 emergency procedures had higher treatment failure rates compared with endoscopists with >51 emergency oesophagogastroduodenoscopies performed (p=0.039) or consultants (p=0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that a minimum number of 20 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies with signs of recent haemorrhage is necessary before endoscopists should be considered proficient to perform emergency procedures independently. Endoscopists might be considered as advanced-qualified experts in managing UGIB after a minimum of 50 haemostatic procedure performed. Implementing recommendations on minimum numbers of emergency endoscopies in education programmes of endoscopy trainees could improve their confidence and competency in managing acute UGIB.

The Reduction of After-Hours and Weekend Effects in Upper Gastro-intestinal Bleeding Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic Compared to the Pre-Pandemic Period

Background

In upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), admissions after normal working hours and during weekends may be associated with increased mortality.

Aim

To assess the evolution of the after-hours and weekend effects during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of progressive improved management despite management challenges during the pandemic.

Methods

We performed an observational study of patients admitted for UGIB at a tertiary academic center between March 2020 and December 2021, compared to the corresponding timeframe before the pandemic. Admissions were assessed based on regular hours versus after-hours and weekdays versus weekends. We stratified patients based on demographic data, etiology, prognostic scores, the time between symptom onset and admission, as and between admission and endoscopy. The outcomes included mortality, rebleeding rate, the requirement for surgery and transfusion, and hospitalization days.

Results

802 cases were recorded during the pandemic, and 1006 cases before the pandemic. The overall mortality rate was 12.33%. Patients admitted after hours and during weekends had a higher mortality rate compared to those admitted during regular hours and weekdays (15.18% versus 10.22%, and 15.25% versus 11.16%), especially in cases of non-variceal bleeding. However, the difference in mortality rates was reduced by 2/3 during the pandemic, despite the challenges posed by COVID-19 infection. This suggests that there was an equalization effect of care in UGIB, regardless of the admission time. The differences observed in mortality rates for after-hours and weekend admissions seem to be primarily related to a higher proportion of patients who did not undergo endoscopy, while the proportion of severe cases remained similar. Blood requirements, hospital days, and rebleeding rate were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Admissions during weekends and after-hours have been associated with increased mortality, particularly in cases of non-variceal bleeding. However, the impact of this association was significantly reduced during the pandemic.

Defining Time in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: When Should We Start the Clock?

Introduction: The execution of upper endoscopy at the proper time is key to correctly managing patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Nonetheless, the definition of “time” for endoscopic examinations in UGIB patients is imprecise. The primary aim of this study was to verify whether the different definitions of “time” (i.e., the symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes) impact mortality. The secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate the similarity between the two timeframes. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed on a prospective multicenter cohort study, which included UGIB patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals. We collected the timings from symptoms and presentation to endoscopy, together with other demographic, organizational and clinical data and outcomes. Results: Out of the 3324 patients in the cohort, complete time data were available for 3166 patients. A significant difference of 9.2 h (p < 0.001) was found between the symptoms-to-endoscopy vs. presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes. The symptoms-to-endoscopy timeframe demonstrated (1) a different death risk profile and (2) a statistically significant improvement in the prediction of mortality risk compared to the presentation-to-endoscopy timeframe (p < 0.0002). The similarity between the two different timeframes was moderate (K = 0.42 ± 0.01; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes referred to different timings during the management of upper endoscopy in bleeding patients, with the former being more accurate in correctly identifying the mortality risk of these patients. We suggest that further studies be conducted to validate our observations, and, if confirmed, a different definition of time should be adopted in endoscopy.

Examination of Impact of After-Hours Admissions on Hospital Resource Use, Patient Outcomes, and Costs

Background. Nighttime and weekends in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) contexts are thought to present a greater risk for adverse events than daytime admissions. Although some studies exist comparing admission time with patient outcomes, the results are contradictory. No studies currently exist comparing costs with the time of admission. We investigated the differences in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality, and cost between daytime and nighttime admissions. Methods. All adult patients (≥18 years of age) admitted to a large academic medical-surgical ICU between 2011 and 2015 were included. Admission cohorts were defined as daytime (8:00–16:59) or nighttime (17:00–07:59). Student’s t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to test for associations between days spent in the ICU, days on mechanical ventilation, comorbidities, diagnoses, and cohort membership. Regression analysis was used to test for associations between patient and hospitalization characteristics and in-hospital mortality and total ICU costs. Results. The majority of admissions occurred during nighttime hours (69.5%) with no difference in the overall Elixhauser comorbidity score between groups ( $p=0.22$ ). Overall ICU length of stay was 7.96 days for daytime admissions compared to 7.07 days ( $p=0.001$ ) for patients admitted during nighttime hours. Overall mortality was significantly higher in daytime admissions (22.5% vs 20.6, $p=0.012$ ); however, ICU mortality was not different. The average MODS was 2.9 with those admitted during the daytime having a significantly higher MODS (3.0, $p=0.046$ ). Total ICU cost was significantly higher for daytime admissions ( $p=0.003$ ). Adjusted ICU mortality was similar in both groups despite an increased rate of adverse events for nighttime admissions. Daytime admissions were associated with increased cost. There was no difference in all hospital total cost or all hospital direct cost between groups. These findings are likely due to the higher severity of illness in daytime admissions. Conclusion. Daytime admissions were associated with a higher severity of illness, mortality rate, and ICU cost. To further account for the effect of staffing differences during off-hours, it may be beneficial to compare weekday and weeknight admission times with associated mortality rates.

The association between out of hours burn centre admission and in-hospital outcomes in patients with severe burns

INTRODUCTION

Patients with severe burns (≥20 % total body surface area [TBSA]) have specific and time sensitive needs on arrival to the burn centre. Burn care systems in Australia and New Zealand are organised differently during weekday business hours compared to overnight and weekends. The aims of this study were to compare the profile of adult patients with severe burns admitted during business hours with patients admitted out of hours and to quantify the association between time of admission and in-hospital outcomes in the Australian and New Zealand context.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand for adults (≥18 years) with severe burns admitted to Australian or New Zealand burn centres between July 2016 and June 2020. Differences in patient profiles, clinical management, and in-hospital outcomes were investigated. Univariable and multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to quantify associations between time of admission and in-hospital outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We found 623 patients eligible for inclusion. Most patients were admitted out of hours (69.2 %), their median age was 42 years, and most were male (78 %). The median size burn was 30 % TBSA and 32 % of patients had an inhalation injury. A greater proportion of patients admitted out of hours had alcohol and/or drugs involved with injury compared to patients admitted during business hours. No other differences between groups were observed. Patients in both groups had similar odds of dying in hospital (Odds Ratio [OR], 95 % Confidence Interval [95 %CI] 1.49 [0.64, 3.48]), developing acute kidney injury within 72 h (OR, 95 %CI 0.58 [0.32, 1.07]), or sepsis (OR, 95 %CI 1.04 [0.46, 2.35]). No association was found between time of admission and hospital (%, 95 %CI 1.00 [0.82, 1.23]) nor intensive care length of stay (%, 95 %CI 0.97 [0.73, 1.27]).

DISCUSSION

In this first Australian and/or New Zealand study to explore the association between time of admission and burn patient in-hospital outcomes, out of hours admission was not associated with patient outcomes of interest.

CONCLUSION

These findings support current models of care in Australian and New Zealand burn centres, however further investigation is required. Nonetheless, given most severe burns patients arrive out of hours to burn the centre, it is plausible that out of hours availability of senior burn clinicians will improve patient care and safety resilience within burn care systems.

Does off-hours endoscopic hemostasis affect outcomes of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Aim: Different researches showed controversial results about the 'off-hours effect' in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Materials & methods: A total of 301 patients with NVUGIB were divided into regular-hours group and off-hours group based on when they received endoscopic hemostasis, and the relationship of the clinical outcomes with off-hours endoscopic hemostasis was evaluated. Results: Patients who received off-hours endoscopy were sicker and more likely to experience worse clinical outcomes. Off-hours endoscopic hemostasis was a significant predictor of the composite outcome in higher-risk patients (adjusted OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 1.35-15.90). However, it did not associate with the outcomes in lower-risk patients. Conclusion: Off-hours effect may affect outcomes of higher-risk NVUGIB patients receiving endoscopic hemostasis (GBS ≥12).

Management of Patient with Simultaneous Overt Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation - Priority Endoscopy

Background

The current ERC guidelines are the source of many positive changes, reduction of mortality, length of hospitalization and improvement of prognosis of STEMI patients. However, there is a small group of patients whose slight modification in guidelines would further reduce in-hospital mortality and hospitalization costs. These are patients with concomitant STEMI infarction and gastrointestinal bleeding.

Methods

Two separate methods of treatment were compared in patients with concomitant gastrointestinal bleeding and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The first – traditional approach, in the line with the ESC guidelines, the second innovative, with priority for endoscopy.

Results

Despite the innovative approach, the patient with endoscopy before PCI was discharged without complication. A patient who has undergone coronary intervention and who has been started on typical antiplatelet therapy prior to gastroenterological diagnosis has died due to massive bleeding.

Conclusion

For ethical reasons and in connection with the cardiological guidelines of the management of ACS, a study of patients with ASC a high risk of intestinal bleeding, in which endoscopy will have priority, and only later PCI, will probably never be performed. Although, as the described case shows, despite exceeding the 90 minutes time to implement PCI (<120 minutes) in logistic terms such behavior is completely feasible.

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.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the gold standard for evaluating and treating acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The optimal timing of endoscopy is a very important consideration in the overall management of UGIB, but there is on going uncertainty regarding timing of the procedure, particularly in those with more severe bleeding. This is reflected by inconsistencies between current guidelines. Although evidence suggests endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 h for all admitted patients with UGIB, a small group of patients with severe bleeding or high-risk features may require more urgent endoscopy. The exact timing of the procedure in this high-risk group remains unclear, with recent data suggesting that performing endoscopy too early may be associated with worse outcome. In this article we examine the evidence for optimal timing of endoscopy in patients presenting with UGIB and suggest a clinical approach to this important aspect of patient management.

Effect of Admission Time on the Outcomes of Liver Cirrhosis with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Regular Hours versus Off-Hours Admission

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a lethal complication of liver cirrhosis. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with liver cirrhosis and AUGIB who were admitted to hospital on regular hours and off-hours.

METHODS

This retrospective study screened all cirrhotic patients with AUGIB who were admitted to our hospital from January 2010 to June 2014 for the test cohort and from December 2014 to March 2018 for the validation cohort. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust the Child-Pugh and MELD scores. In-hospital mortality, 5-day rebleeding rate, length of stay, and total payment were primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 826 and 173 patients with liver cirrhosis and AUGIB were included in the test and validation cohorts, respectively. After propensity score matching, 226 and 40 patients were included in the test and validation cohorts, respectively. The overall analysis of the test cohort found significantly higher Child-Pugh score (P=0.006), 5-day rebleeding rate (18.69% versus 10.72%, P=0.001), and total payment (¥25,906.83 versus ¥22,017.42, P<0.001) in patients admitted on off-hours. By contrast, the overall analysis of the validation cohort did not find any difference in Child-Pugh score, 5-day rebleeding, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or hospital payment between patients admitted on regular hours and off-hours. Similarly, the propensity score matching analyses of both test and validation cohorts found no difference in these primary outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-hours admission might not be negatively associated with the outcomes of patients with liver cirrhosis and AUGIB.