Timing of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy does not influence short-term outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

Timing of endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of endoscopy in liver cirrhosis with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains controversial in current guidelines and studies.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and AVB were screened. The timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB or the admission to endoscopy. Early endoscopy was defined as the interval < 12 h, < 24 h, or < 48 h. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Five-day failure to control bleeding and in-hospital mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 534 patients were included. When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB, PSM analysis demonstrated that the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding was significantly higher in early endoscopy group defined as < 48 h (9.7% versus 2.4%, P = 0.009), but not < 12 h (8.7% versus 6.5%, P = 1.000) or < 24 h (13.4% versus 6.2%, P = 0.091), and that the in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between early and delayed endoscopy groups (< 12 h: 6.5% versus 4.3%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 4.1% versus 3.1%, P = 1.000; <48 h: 3.0% versus 2.4%, P = 1.000). When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the admission, PSM analyses did not demonstrate any significant difference in the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 12.7%, P = 0.205; <24 h: 5.2% versus 7.7%, P = 0.355; <48 h: 4.5% versus 6.0%, P = 0.501) or in-hospital mortality (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 4.8%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 3.9% versus 2.6%, P = 0.750; <48 h: 2.0% versus 2.5%, P = 1.000) between early and delayed endoscopy groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study could not support any significant association of timing of endoscopy with cirrhotic patients with AVB.

The influences of timing of urgent endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

There has always been a debate on the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the relation between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of patients with AVB.

METHODS

Patients with AVB who underwent endoscopy within 24 h after admission at our tertiary care center from 2014 to 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. The primary outcomes were the 6-week mortality and re-bleeding. The secondary outcomes included the total number of blood units transfused, the length of hospital stay, and the need for salvage therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the predictors of 6-week mortality in all patients as well as in those who were at high risk of further bleeding or death.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients were enrolled. Among them, 170 patients (54.49%) underwent urgent endoscopy (< 6 h), and 142 patients (45.51%) underwent early endoscopy (6-24 h). There were no significant differences between the urgent-endoscopy group and the early-endoscopy group, regarding the 6-week mortality (16.47% vs. 10.56%; P value = 0.132) and 6-week re-bleeding rate (11.2% vs. 16.2%; P value = 0.196). In multivariate analysis, time to endoscopy was independent of 6-week mortality (P value = 0.170), but the time between the beginning of bleeding and endoscopy (within 12 h) was significantly associated with low 6-week mortality (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06-0.46; P value = 0.001). Time to endoscopy was still not associated with 6-week mortality in patients at high risk for further bleeding or death (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥ 12, n = 138, P value = 0.902).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy performed within 6 h of admission, rather than within 6 to 24 h, did not improve six-week clinical outcomes in patients in stable condition with AVB and even those who were at high risk of further bleeding and death.

Analysis of the timing of endoscopic treatment for esophagogastric variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Background

Existing guidelines recommend endoscopic treatment within 12 h or 12–24 h for patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) in cirrhosis. In addition, research findings on the optimal time for endoscopy are inconsistent.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the timing of endoscopy and clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with EGVB and to analyze the risk factors for the composite outcomes after endoscopic treatment.

Methods

From January 2019 to June 2020, 456 patients with cirrhotic EGVB who underwent endoscopy were matched by a 1:1 propensity score. Finally, 266 patients were divided into two groups, including 133 patients within 12 h (urgent endoscopy group) of admission and after 12 h (non-urgent endoscopy group). Baseline data and clinical outcomes were compared. Logistic regression model analysis was used to determine risk factors for 30 days rebleeding and mortality.

Results

In 266 patients, the overall 30 days rebleeding rate and mortality were 10.9% (n = 29) and 3.4% (n = 9), respectively. Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment within 12 h had significantly higher 30 days rebleeding outcomes than those who underwent treatment beyond 12 h (15 vs. 6.8%, p = 0.003). However, 30 days mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (3 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.736). Logistic regression analysis showed that age and shock on admission were independent risk factors for the composite outcome of 30 days rebleeding and mortality in patients with EGVB.

Conclusion

The 30 days rebleeding rate in patients with cirrhotic EGVB treated with urgent endoscopy was significantly higher than that in patients treated with non-urgent endoscopy, but there was no significant difference in 30 days mortality.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Timing of endoscopic intervention in patients with cirrhosis with acute variceal haemorrhage (TEACH trial): protocol for a randomised clinical trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH) in patients with cirrhosis remains a topic of great interest. Although several guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24 hours after AVH, there is no consensus on the most appropriate time to perform this intervention. The purpose of this study is to identify whether urgent endoscopy (within 6 hours after gastroenterological consultation) is superior to non-urgent endoscopy (between 6 hours and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation) in reducing the rebleeding rate of these patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centred, prospective, randomised clinical trial. Between March 2021 and December 2023, an estimated 400 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive endoscopic intervention either within 6 hours or between 6 and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation. Randomisation will be conducted by permuted block randomisation, with stratification by age, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate. The primary efficacy endpoint is rebleeding within 42 days after control of AVH. The secondary efficacy endpoints mainly include all-cause mortality within 42 days after randomisation, persistent bleeding, length of hospitalisation, etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees of Jinling Hospital (authorised ethics no. DZQH-KYLL-21-01). This trial will provide valuable insights into the timing of endoscopic intervention for AVH in patients with cirrhosis. Furthermore, the trial results and conclusions could provide high-quality evidence to guide clinical research and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04786743.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to portal hypertension in children: What is the best timing of endoscopy?

OBJECTIVE

To compare initial clinical/laboratory parameters and outcomes of mortality/rebleeding of endoscopy performed <12 h(early UGIE) versus endoscopy performed after 12-24h(late UGIE) of ED admission in children with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding(AUGIB) due to portal hypertension.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. From January 2010 to July 2017, medical records of all children admitted to a tertiary care hospital with AUGIB due to portal hypertension were reviewed until 60 days after ED admission.

RESULTS

A total of 98 ED admissions occurred from 73 patients. Rebleeding was identified in 8/98(8%) episodes, and 9 deaths were observed. UGIE was performed in 92(94%) episodes, and 53(58%) of them occurred within 12 h of ED admission. Episodes with early UGIE and late UGIE were similar in terms of history/complaints/laboratory data at admission, chronic liver disease associated, AUGIB duration, and initial management. No statistically significant associations were found between early UGIE and the outcomes of death/rebleeding and prevalence of endoscopic hemostatic treatment (band ligation or sclerotherapy) compared to late UGIE. In the multivariable logistic regression model, the endoscopic hemostatic treatment showed a negative association with early UGIE(OR=0.33;95%CI=0.1-0.9;p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that in pediatric patients with AUGIB and portal hypertension, UGIE may be performed after 12-24 h without harm to the patient, facilitating better initial clinical stabilization/treatment and optimization of resources.

Outcomes of early versus delayed endoscopy in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopy is the mainstay treatment option for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in liver cirrhosis. However, the optimal timing of endoscopy in such patients remains unclear.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched. We compared the mortality, incidence of rebleeding, length of stay, endoscopic hemostasis, need for salvage and units of transfusion between cirrhotic patients with AVB who underwent early and delayed endoscopy. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effect model. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed in studies where early endoscopy was defined as <12 h.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective studies involving 2824 patients were included. The early endoscopy group had a significantly lower overall mortality than the delayed endoscopy group in overall analysis (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.33-0.95, P = 0.03), but the difference between them was NS in subgroup analysis (OR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.38-1.38, P = 0.33). In-hospital (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.26-2.32, P = 0.65) and 6-week (OR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.42-1.47, P = 0.45) mortality were not significantly different between them. Overall rebleeding was not significantly different between early and delayed endoscopy groups in both overall (OR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.51-1.51, P = 0.63) and subgroup (OR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.55-1.95, P = 0.90) analyses. In-hospital (OR = 1.41, 95% CI, 0.67-2.96, P = 0.37) and 6-week (OR = 0.93, 95% CI, 0.40-2.17, P = 0.86) rebleeding remained not significantly different between them. Additionally, the length of stay, endoscopic hemostasis, need for salvage and units of transfusion were not significantly different between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Early endoscopy may improve the survival of cirrhotic patients with AVB, but has no remarkable benefit on the prevention of rebleeding. These findings should be further validated by high-quality studies.

Acute variceal bleeding and out-of-hours endoscopy: Evaluation of an emergency care setting according to Baveno VI guidelines adherence

BACKGROUND

The extent to which patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) receive recommended care is largely unknown.

AIM

to evaluate the adherence of the 4 major Baveno VI recommendations [vasoactive agents, prophylactic antibiotic, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) within 12 hours, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)] as a marker of quality of an emergency model.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of AVB admissions to a tertiary centre in which endoscopy was available 24hours-a-day, with a regional out-of-hours service at night (the furthest hospital is 200Km away). Patients were divided in directly admitted or transferred from other centres.

RESULTS

210 AVB patients were included; 101 (48.1%) were directly admitted. The majority of patients were submitted to vasoactive agents (85.7%) and prophylactic antibiotics (79%) before EGD. In 178 patients (84.8%) endoscopy was performed within 12h and EVL was the procedure of choice in 116 (74.8%) (only oesophageal varices). No significant differences were observed between directly admitted and transferred patients in adherence rates. Overall rebleeding rate was 8.6%, in-hospital mortality 11.4% and 6-week mortality 20%.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to quality metrics was high which might have played a vital role for reported outcomes. These results suggest that this model of care, provides accessibility and equity in access to urgent endoscopy.

Clinical utility of the Glasgow Blatchford Score in patients presenting to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to EDs. Limited Australian data are available. Study aims were to assess mortality and re-bleeding rates in patients presenting with UGIB as risk-stratified by the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of all patients presenting with UGIB to a Brisbane tertiary hospital ED over a 12-month period. This descriptive study summarised the medical characteristics related to UGIB as risk-stratified by the GBS. Non-variceal bleeding was categorised as low-risk (GBS 0-2) or high-risk (GBS 3+). Variceal bleeding was not risk stratified.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients presented with UGIB to the ED. The median age was 57 years, 67% were male. Mortality rates at 30 days were: 0% for GBS 0-2, 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-6) for GBS 3+ and 10% (95% CI 0-21) for variceal groups. The overall 30-day re-bleeding rate was 4.3% (95% CI 2-7). High-risk patients accessed endoscopy according to international best practice of less than 24 h (GBS 3+, 23.7 h; variceal bleeding, 7.3 h).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality and re-bleeding outcomes are similar to other international UGIB cohorts. Patients with a low-risk bleed were appropriately identified and discharged home. Those at higher risk were correctly identified and accessed timely endoscopy. The GBS demonstrated clinical utility in an Australian ED cohort of UGIB bleeding patients.

Emergent Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Acute Variceal Bleeding

Emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation is most commonly employed in the setting of acute variceal hemorrhage. Given a propensity for decompensation, these patients often require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach involving prompt diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic intervention. While successful in the majority of cases, failure to medically control initial bleeding can prompt interventional radiology consultation for emergent portal decompression via TIPS creation. This article discusses TIPS creation in emergent, acute variceal hemorrhage, reviewing the natural history of gastroesophageal varices, presentation and diagnosis of acute variceal hemorrhage, pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, patient selection and risk stratification for TIPS, technical considerations for TIPS creation, adjunctive embolotherapy, and the role of salvage TIPS versus early TIPS in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Optimal endoscopy timing in patients with acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Although current guidelines recommend performing endoscopy within 12 hours for acute variceal bleeding (AVB), the optimal timing remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the effect of endoscopy timing on the mortality and rebleeding rates in AVB through a systematic review and meta-analysis of all eligible studies. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for relevant publications up to January 2019. Overall mortality, rebleeding rate, and other clinical outcomes were determined. For the non-randomized studies, the risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model of the RevMan software (Cochrane) and the inverse variance method were used to analyse binary end points and continuous outcomes, respectively. This meta-analysis included five studies with 854 and 453 participants who underwent urgent (≤12 hours) and non-urgent endoscopies (>12 hours), respectively. All the included studies were retrospective in nature, because of obvious ethical issues. No significant differences in the severity indexes were found between the urgent and non-urgent groups. Three studies showed 6-week mortality and the others in-hospital mortality as main outcomes. No significant difference in overall mortality rate was found between the groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36–1.45, p = 0.36). The rebleeding rate was similar between the two groups (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.76–1.93, p = 0.41). Other outcomes such as successful haemostasis, need for salvage therapy, length of hospital stay, and number of blood transfusions were also similar between the groups. We demonstrated that endoscopy timing does not affect the mortality or rebleeding rate of patients with AVB. Therefore, an appropriate timing of endoscopy would be more important than an urgent endoscopy depending on each patient’s condition.

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.