Guidance for the gastrointestinal evaluation and management of iron deficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Over 30% of the world's population is anaemic, with a significant proportion of these being iron deficient. As iron deficiency (ID) anaemia in men and post-menopausal women is mostly caused by gastrointestinal blood loss or malabsorption, the initial evaluation of a patient with ID anaemia involves referral to a gastroenterologist. The current drive towards patient blood management in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)prescribes that we regulate not only the use of blood transfusion but also the management of patients in whom the cause of iron loss or inadequate iron absorption is sought. Recommendations have been developed to: (i) aid clinicians in the evaluation of suspected gastrointestinal iron loss and iron malabsorption, and often a combination of these; (ii) improve clinical outcomes for patients with gastrointestinal causes of ID; (iii) provide current, evidence-based, context-specific recommendations for use in the management of ID; and (iv) conserve resources by ensuring rational utilisation of blood and blood products.

METHOD

Development of the guidance document was facilitated by the Gastroenterology Foundation of Sub-Saharan Africa and the South African Gastroenterology Society. The consensus recommendations are based on a rigorous process involving 21 experts in gastroenterology and haematology in SSA. Following discussion of the scope and purpose of the guidance document among the experts, an initial review of the literature and existing guidelines was undertaken. Thereafter, draft recommendation statements were produced to fulfil the outlined purpose of the guidance document. These were reviewed in a round-table discussion and were subjected to two rounds of anonymised consensus voting by the full committee in an electronic Delphi exercise during 2022 using the online platform, Research Electronic Data Capture. Recommendations were modified by considering feedback from the previous round, and those reaching a consensus of over 80% were incorporated into the final document. Finally, 44 statements in the document were read and approved by all members of the working group.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations incorporate six areas, namely: general recommendations and practice, Helicobacter pylori, coeliac disease, suspected small bowel bleeding, inflammatory bowel disease, and preoperative care. Implementation of the recommendations is aimed at various levels from individual practitioners to healthcare institutions, departments and regional, district, provincial and national platforms. It is intended that the recommendations spur the development of centre-specific guidelines and that they are integrated with the relevant patient blood management protocols. Integration of the recommendations is intended to promote optimal evaluation and management of patients with ID, regardless of the presence of anaemia.

Factors influencing in-hospital mortality for salvage percutaneous transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting in cirrhotic patients with recalcitrant variceal bleeding after failed endoscopic intervention

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy is the first-line treatment of choice for control of acute variceal bleeding (AVB). In high-risk patients with persistent AVB despite pharmacological treatment and endoscopic intervention, percutaneous transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting (TIPS) provides a minimally invasive salvage method to reduce portal pressure and control bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate factors influencing in-hospital mortality after salvage TIPS (sTIPS) in patients with exsanguinating variceal bleeding despite medical treatment and endoscopic intervention.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory data were analysed in all patients treated with sTIPS following failed endoscopic therapy for AVB between August 1991 and November 2020. Factors associated with and predictors of death were determined using bivariate analysis and univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (29 men, 5 women), mean age 52 years (range 31 - 80), received sTIPS for uncontrolled (n=11) or refractory (n=23) AVB. The causes of portal hypertension were alcohol-related (n=24) and non-alcohol-related cirrhosis. Salvage TIPS controlled bleeding in 32 patients, with recurrence in 1. Ten patients died in hospital (mean 4.8 days, range 1 - 10) of liver failure (n=4), multiorgan failure (n=3), alcoholic cardiomyopathy (n=2) and uncontrolled gastric variceal bleeding (n=1). On bivariate analysis, factors associated with death were Child-Pugh (C-P) score ≥10 (p=0.006), sodium Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD-Na) score ≥22 (p<0.001), ≥8 units of blood transfused (p<0.001), Sengstaken-Blakemore balloon tube placement (p<0.001), endotracheal intubation (p<0.001), inotropic support (p<0.001) and endoscopically uncontrolled bleeding (p<0.001). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the most significant predictors of mortality were inotrope dependency (odds ratio (OR) 134; p<0.001), endotracheal intubation (OR 99; p<0.001), endoscopically uncontrolled bleeding (OR 28; p=0.001), grade 3 ascites (OR 20.9; p=0.012) and C-P grade C (OR 8.8; p=0.011).

CONCLUSION

Salvage TIPS controlled variceal bleeding in 94% of patients after failed endoscopic therapy with 29% in-hospital mortality. The most significant predictors of mortality were C-P grade C, grade 3 ascites, inotrope requirement, endotracheal intubation and endoscopically uncontrolled bleeding.

The consequences of major visceral vascular injuries on outcome in patients with pancreatic injuries: a case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Major pancreatic injuries are complex to treat, especially when combined with vascular and other critical organ injuries. This case-matched analysis assessed the influence of associated visceral vascular injuries on outcome in pancreatic injuries.

METHOD

A registered prospective database of 461 consecutive patients with pancreatic injuries was used to identify 68 patients with a Pancreatic Injury combined with a major visceral Vascular Injury (PIVI group) and were matched one-to-one by an independent blinded reviewer using a validated individual matching method to 68 similar Pancreatic Injury patients without a vascular injury (PI group). The two groups were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis and outcome including complication rates, length of hospital stay and 90-day mortality rate was measured.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched according to surgical intervention. Mortality in the PIVI group was 41% (n = 28) compared to 13% (n = 9) in the PI alone group (p = 0.000, OR 4.5, CI 1.00-10.5). On univariate analysis the PIVI group was significantly more likely to (i) be shocked on admission, (ii) have a RTS < 7.8, (iii) require damage control laparotomy, (iv) require a blood transfusion, both in frequency and volume, (v) develop a major postoperative complication and (vi) die. On multivariate analysis, the need for damage control laparotomy was a significant variable (p = 0.015, OR 7.95, CI 1.50-42.0) for mortality. Mortality of AAST grade 1 and 2 pancreatic injuries combined with a vascular injury was 18.5% (5/27) compared to an increased mortality of 56.1% (23/41) of AAST grade 3, 4 and 5 pancreatic injuries with vascular injuries (p = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that pancreatic injuries associated with major visceral vascular injuries have a significantly higher complication and mortality rate than pancreatic injuries without vascular injuries and that the addition of a vascular injury with an increasing AAST grade of pancreatic injury exponentially compounds the mortality rate.

Prognostic factors, morbidity and mortality in pancreatic trauma: a critical appraisal of 432 consecutive patients treated at a Level 1 Trauma Centre

BACKGROUND

This large retrospective observational cohort study evaluated prognostic factors, 30-day morbidity and mortality and complications related to the pancreas in patients who had sustained pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

The records of 432 consecutive patients treated for pancreatic injuries at an urban Level 1 Trauma Centre in Cape Town between January 1982 and December 2012 were reviewed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and death. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess significant predictors of morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Overall mortality in 432 patients [394 men, median age 26, median RTS 7.8] was 15.7% and morbidity 66%. Bivariate logistic regression analysis showed that nine factors, age, RTS, presence of shock, need for a transfusion, volume of blood transfused, damage control surgery, AAST grade of pancreatic injury, an associated vascular injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. In the final multivariate logistic regression analysis model however only two variables, AAST grade of pancreatic injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. When factors associated with mortality were considered, logistic regression analysis found that 11 variables, age, RTS, the presence of shock, patients who required a major blood transfusion, the median number of units transfused, the need for a damage control laparotomy, AAST grade 3, 4, 5 pancreatic injuries, associated vascular injuries, the number of associated injuries, postoperative complications and days in ICU were significant. However in the final stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis model only five variables, age, shock, median number of units transfused and the presence of associated complications were significant factors associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity was 64% and AAST grade of pancreatic injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. Overall mortality was 15.7%. Most deaths were due to associated injuries and were unrelated to the pancreatic injury. Five variables, age, shock, median number of units transfused and the presence of associated complications were significant factors associated with mortality. These data indicate that the magnitude of blood loss and haemorrhagic shock are primary determinants for survival and that urgent reversal of shock and control of bleeding are essential to reduce mortality in this cohort of patients.