Management of Patients on Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Peri-Endoscopic Period: A Clinical Practice Guideline Dissemination Tool

Endoscopic Hemostasis and Antithrombotic Management

This review highlights the available literature for antithrombotic management and hemostasis techniques that can be leveraged when caring for patients on antithrombotic medications who may develop gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Risks of both index GIB as well as risk of recurrent GIB are reviewed with emphasis on the balance between therapeutic benefits and bleeding hazards that are inherent with these medications. For management of these complications, an in-depth review of the various endoscopic hemostasis techniques that can be utilized is also provided.

Peptic ulcer disease

Annual prevalence estimates of peptic ulcer disease range between 0·12% and 1·5%. Peptic ulcer disease is usually attributable to Helicobacter pylori infection, intake of some medications (such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications), or being critically ill (stress-related), or it can be idiopathic. The clinical presentation is usually uncomplicated, with peptic ulcer disease management based on eradicating H pylori if present, the use of acid-suppressing medications-most often proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)-or addressing complications, such as with early endoscopy and high-dose PPIs for peptic ulcer bleeding. Special considerations apply to patients on antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents. H pylori treatment has evolved, with the choice of regimen dictated by local antibiotic resistance patterns. Indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis vary across societies; most suggest PPIs for patients at highest risk of developing a peptic ulcer, its complications, or its recurrence. Additional research areas include the use of potassium-competitive acid blockers and H pylori vaccination; the optimal approach for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding requires more robust determinations of optimal patient selection and treatment selection, if any. Appropriate continuation of PPI use outweighs most possible side-effects if given for approved indications, while de-prescribing should be trialled when a definitive indication is no longer present.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy with Polypectomy

Introduction/Objective  Colonoscopy with polypectomy is an integral component of colorectal cancer screening. There are limited data and consensus on periprocedural anticoagulation management, especially regarding bleeding risk with uninterrupted anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk with interruption. Our aim was to determine the incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic complications among colon screening participants undergoing colonoscopy following implementation of a novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management. Methods  We conducted a retrospective study including all participants (age 50-74) on an oral anticoagulant (e.g., vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants) referred to the British Columbia Colon Screening Program for colonoscopy following abnormal fecal immunochemical test in a 6-month period (March-August 2022). Data relating to their specific periprocedural anticoagulant management and colonoscopy results including method of polypectomy were obtained. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and arterial or venous thromboembolic events from time of oral anticoagulant interruption until 14 days of postcolonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included nonmajor and minor bleeding, acute coronary syndrome, emergency room visit, hospital admission, and death due to any cause. Results  Over the 6-month period, 162 participants completed standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management, colonoscopy ± polypectomy, and 14-day follow-up. One (0.6%) had a major bleeding event and one (0.6%) had an arterial thromboembolic event. Conclusions  A novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management with a multidisciplinary team is associated with low rates of major bleeding and thrombotic complications after colonoscopy with polypectomy.

Assessment, Resuscitation and Medical Management of Variceal and Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) continues to be an important cause for emergency room visits and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Early resuscitative measures form the basis of the management of patients presenting with UGIB and can improve the outcomes of such patients including lowering mortality. In this review, using an evidence-based approach, we discuss the initial assessment and resuscitation of patients presenting with UGIB including identifying clues from history and physical examination to confirm UGIB, preendoscopic risk assessment tools, the role of early fluid resuscitation, utilization of blood products, use of pharmacologic interventions, and the optimal timing of endoscopy.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review and summarize the most recent literature, including evidence-based guidelines, on the evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

RECENT FINDINGS

LGIB primarily presents in the elderly, often on the background of comorbidities, and constitutes a significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Therefore, acute LGIB requires rapid evaluation, informed decision-making, and evidence-based management decisions. LGIB management involves withholding and possibly reversing precipitating medications and concurrently addressing risk factors, with definitive diagnosis and therapy for the source of bleeding usually performed by endoscopic or radiological means. Recent advancements in LGIB diagnosis and management, including risk stratification tools and novel endoscopic therapeutic techniques have improved LGIB management and patient outcomes. In recent years, the various society guidelines on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding have been revised and updated accordingly.

SUMMARY

By integrating the most recently published high-quality clinical studies and society guidelines, we provide clinicians with an up-to-date and comprehensive overview on acute LGIB diagnosis and management.

Definition of factor Xa inhibitor-related, life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding and guidance on when to use reversal therapy: A Delphi panel

Objective

To define and contextualize life-threatening gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the setting of factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor therapy and to derive a consensus-based, clinically oriented approach to the administration of FXa inhibitor reversal therapy.

Methods

We convened an expert panel of clinicians representing specialties in emergency medicine, gastroenterology, vascular medicine, and trauma surgery. Consensus was reached among the clinician panelists using the Delphi technique, which consisted of 2 survey questionnaires followed by virtual, real-time consensus-building exercises.

Results

Hypovolemia and hemodynamic instability were considered the most important clinical signs of FXa inhibitor-related, life-threatening GI bleeds. Clinician panelists agreed that potentially life-threatening GI bleeding should be determined on the basis of hemodynamic instability, signs of shock, individual patient characteristics, and clinical judgment. Last, the panel agreed that all patients with life-threatening, FXa inhibitor-associated GI bleeding should be considered for FXa inhibitor reversal therapy; the decision to reverse FXa inhibition should be individualized, weighing the risks and benefits of reversal; and when reversal is elected, therapy should be administered within 1 h after initial emergency department evaluation, when possible.

Conclusions

Consensus-based definitions of life-threatening GI bleeding and approaches to FXa inhibitor reversal centered on hemodynamic instability, signs of shock, individual patient characteristics, and clinical judgment. The results from this Delphi panel may inform clinical decision-making for the treatment of patients experiencing GI bleeding associated with FXa inhibitor use in the emergency department setting.