Utility of the Shock Index and Other Risk-Scoring Tools in Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding

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.

Effective use of the hybrid emergency Department system in the treatment of non-traumatic critical care diseases

BACKGROUND

The hybrid emergency room (ER) system can provide resuscitation, computed tomography imaging, endovascular treatment, and emergency surgery, without transferring the patient. However, although several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of the hybrid ER for trauma conditions, only a few case reports have demonstrated its usefulness for non-traumatic critical diseases. In this observational cohort study, we aimed to identify endogenous diseases that may benefit from treatment in the hybrid ER.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics of patients with non-traumatic conditions treated in a hybrid ER between August 2017 and July 2022 at our institution. Patients who underwent surgery, endoscopy, or interventional radiology (IR) in the hybrid ER were selected and pathophysiologically divided into a bleeding and non-bleeding group. The rate of shock or cardiac arrest, blood transfusion, and death within 24 h of admission or in-hospital death were compared among the groups using Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to confirm the relationships among in-hospital mortality, transfusion, and hemorrhagic conditions in patients who underwent endoscopy and IR.

RESULTS

Among the 726 patients with non-traumatic conditions treated in a hybrid ER system, 50 (6.9%) experienced cardiac arrest at or before admission to the hybrid ER, 301 (41.5%) were in shock, 126 (17.4%) received blood transfusions, 42 (5.8%) died within 24 h of admission to the hybrid ER, and 141 (19.4%) died in the hospital. Emergency surgery was performed in 39 patients (7 in the bleeding group and 32 in the non-bleeding group). Significantly more blood transfusions were administered in the bleeding group (71.4% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.01); there were no significant differences in the rate of shock or cardiac arrest, death within 24 h, or in-hospital death between groups. Endoscopy was performed in 122 patients (80 in the bleeding group and 42 in the non-bleeding group). The bleeding group had a significantly higher rate of shock or cardiac arrest (87.5% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.008) and rate of blood transfusion (62.5% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.0001); there was no significant difference in death within 24 h and in-hospital death between groups. IR was performed in 100 patients (68 in the bleeding group and 32 in the non-bleeding group). Significantly more blood transfusions were administered in the hemorrhage group (67.7% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.0001); there was no difference in the rate of shock or cardiac arrest, death within 24 h, or in-hospital death between groups. Multivariable analysis in patients who underwent endoscopy showed a trend toward more in-hospital deaths in non-hemorrhagic conditions than in hemorrhagic conditions (odds ratio = 3.8, 95% confidence interval: 0.88-17, P = 0.073); however, no significant relationship with in-hospital death was observed for any of the adjusted variables.

CONCLUSION

Among endogenous diseases treated in the hybrid ER, there is a possible association between in-hospital mortality and hemorrhagic conditions. Future studies are needed to focus on diseases to demonstrate the effectiveness of the hybrid ER.

Derivation and validation of a novel risk score to predict need for haemostatic intervention in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (London Haemostat Score)

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, which takes up considerable healthcare resources. However, only approximately 20%-30% of bleeds require urgent haemostatic intervention. Current standard of care is for all patients admitted to hospital to undergo endoscopy within 24 hours for risk stratification, but this is difficult to achieve in practice, invasive and costly.

AIM

To develop a novel non-endoscopic risk stratification tool for AUGIB to predict the need for haemostatic intervention by endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatments. We compared this with the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS).

DESIGN

Model development was carried out using a derivation (n=466) and prospectively collected validation cohort (n=404) of patients who were admitted with AUGIB to three large hospitals in London, UK (2015-2020). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables that were associated with increased or decreased chances of requiring haemostatic intervention. This model was converted into a risk scoring system, the London Haemostat Score (LHS).

RESULTS

The LHS was more accurate at predicting need for haemostatic intervention than the GBS, in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.77; p<0.001) and validation cohort (AUROC 0.80; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.85 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.78; p<0.001). At cut-off scores at which LHS and GBS identified patients who required haemostatic intervention with 98% sensitivity, the specificity of the LHS was 41% vs 18% with the GBS (p<0.001). This could translate to 32% of inpatient endoscopies for AUGIB being avoided at a cost of only a 0.5% false negative rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The LHS is accurate at predicting the need for haemostatic intervention in AUGIB and could be used to identify a proportion of low-risk patients who can undergo delayed or outpatient endoscopy. Validation in other geographical settings is required before routine clinical use.

Daily Usage of Proton Pump Inhibitors May Reduce the Severity of Critical Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Elderly Patients

Introduction

We retrospectively examined the relationship between daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and severity of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), mainly in the elderly.

Methods

We included 97 patients with nonvariceal UGIB diagnosed at our hospital from January 2012 to October 2017. Bleeding severity was assessed using the shock index (SI) and estimated bleeding volume; 49 patients met the criterion for the mild group and 48 for the moderate/severe group. The effect of PPI use on bleeding severity was compared between the groups. The relationships of PPI use and dose with the clinical symptoms of UGIB were also analyzed.

Results

Among the 97 patients, 17 (17.5%) habitually used PPIs. The rate of habitual PPI use was significantly higher in the mild group, indicating as an independent factor contributing to a reduction in the severity of UGIB in a multiple logistic regression analysis (30.6% vs. 4.2%; OR 10.147; 95% CI 2.174–47.358, P < 0.01). When analyzing data for a subgroup of patients older than 75 years, we found the protective PPI effect to be even higher in the mild UGIB group than in the moderate/severe group (37.0% vs. 5.6%; OR 10.000; 95% CI 1.150–86.951, P < 0.05). Conversely, we found no association between PPI prescription and UGIB symptoms in patients younger than 75 years. The mean estimated bleeding volume and SI in the 17 habitual PPI users were both significantly less than those among the 80 nonhabitual users, respectively (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients with mild UGIB was similar between the low- and high-dose PPI users.

Conclusions

Particularly in elderly patients with nonvariceal UGIB, habitual PPI use can alleviate the clinical symptoms of UGIB by suppressing the volume of bleeding, regardless of the adapted dose of PPIs.

Correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

Background/aim

To investigate the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

Materials and methods

A total of 955 patients with PUB were assessed using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, as well as the Forrest classification based on their gastroscopy results. The correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index was determined using scatter plot analysis, and the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index and Forrest classification was determined using Spearman’s analysis.

Results

Both the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index showed the highest values in patients with Forrest class IIa. The Glasgow-Blatchford score was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIc/III (P < 0.05), and the shock index was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIb/III (P < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, at r = 0.427 (P < 0.001). A negative correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification, at r = –0.111 (P < 0.01), and between the shock index and Forrest classification, at r = –0.138 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

A moderate correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index in patients with PUB, and the correlation between the Forrest classification and Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index was relatively low.

Rockall Score Larger Than 7 as a Reliable Criterion for the Selection of Indications for Preventive Transarterial Embolization in a Subgroup of High-Risk Elderly Patients After Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background

Transarterial embolization (TAE) is an alternative procedure to repeat endoscopy or surgical intervention in the case of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the Rockall score as a criterion for TAE in the case of re-bleeding after endoscopic treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

Methods

Out of the 673 patients who underwent emergent endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB, 111 had a high risk of re-bleeding having a Forrest I-IIb ulcer and the Rockall score ≥ 5. From 111 patients, 37 accepted preventive TAE (PE+ group). The control group consisted of 74 patients who underwent standard treatment (PE- group).

Results

There were no differences in the demographic status between both groups, nor in the main clinical data on admission. The performance of TAE resulted in a significantly lower re-bleeding rate (1 (4.8%) vs. 11 (33%), P = 0.018). No patient who underwent TAE with the Rockall score ≥ 7 required surgery, resulting in only one re-bleeding episode (P = 0.004). Mortality reached 5% and 11% in the PE+ and PE- groups accordingly.

Conclusion

The Rockall score ≥ 7 could be a reliable predictor of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic hemostasis as one criterion for the selection of indications for preventive TAE.

Utility of the Shock Index for Risk Stratification in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) frequently require hospitalization, and a small but significant percentage of these patients have adverse outcomes. Risk-scoring tools can help clinicians organize care and make predictions about outcomes. The shock index (heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure) has been used in multiple acute disorders and has the potential to identify patients with UGIB who are at risk for adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients admitted with UGIB between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. We collected information about patient demographics, presenting symptoms, underlying clinical disorders, endoscopic results, and outcomes. We calculated risk scores using the Glasgow-Blatchford score, the pre-endoscopy Rockall score, the full Rockall score, the AIMS65 (albumin, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, age older than 65 years) score, and the shock index.

RESULTS

This study included 214 admissions for acute UGIB. The mean age was 59.0 ± 15.9 years, 64.5% were men, the mean hemoglobin was 9.2 ± 3.1 g/dL, and the mean shock index was 0.78 ± 0.21 bpm/mm Hg. The mean shock index was significantly increased in patients requiring endoscopic therapy, admission to the intensive care unit, blood component transfusion, and red blood cell transfusion. Classification of patients by a shock index >0.7 preferentially selected patients with these adverse short-term outcomes. Among the scoring tools evaluated in this study, the shock index was the best predictor of the need for endoscopic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The shock index is a good tool to identify patients with the potential for short-term adverse outcomes when they present with UGIB. It performs as well as other risk-scoring tools for GI bleeding and has the potential for serial use during hospitalization to identify changes in the clinical course.