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

Skipping the Drip: Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor Bolus Therapy Leads to Poor Outcomes in High-Risk Bleeding

Background and Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a change in our institute's protocol from continuous intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy to bolus IV PPI therapy for the treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding on patient outcomes. Current guidelines recommend PPI therapy through high-dose IV bolus followed by continuous infusion for bleeding ulcers. Conflicting data have been reported regarding the practice shift to intermittent IV PPI therapy. Methods A retrospective record review was conducted of patients treated at West Virginia University between 2017 and 2018 for peptic ulcer related bleeding who underwent endoscopy and had high-risk stigmata. Relevant variables were identified. Outcomes were compared between groups based on PPI strategy. The primary endpoint was any poor outcome defined as rebleeding, need for embolization or surgery, or mortality during hospital stay. Results A total of 130 patients were included, with a mean age of 62.18 years. Continuous PPI infusion was used in 39.23%, whereas bolus IV PPI was used 60.76%. Poor outcome was encountered in 11 (21.57%) patients in the continuous and 33 (41.77%) patients in the bolus group (p = 0.028). On multivariable analyses, bolus PPI strategy was independently linked to poor outcome (Wald's odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.21-6.84; p = 0.019) and an increased need for embolization/surgery (OR: 4.12, 95% CI: 1.14-19.99; p = 0.046). Conclusions IV bolus therapy showed worse outcomes compared with continuous IV PPI therapy for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding with high-risk features. More robust data are needed before a practice shift to bolus PPI may be appropriate.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and the Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk in Real-World Studies

In the present study, we aimed to provide evidence from high-quality real world studies for a comprehensive and rigorous analysis on the gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) risk for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PUBMED, and of 286 records screened, we included data from 11 high-quality real-world studies, coordinated by independent research groups over the last 3 years, that reported major GIB events in patients given NOACs or vitamin K antagonists for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The lowest risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was with apixaban compared with warfarin (hazard ratio (HR) for GIB for apixaban ranging between 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.59) and 1.13 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.63)). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of GI bleeding than dabigatran ((HR ranging between 0.39 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.58) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.18)) or rivaroxaban ((HR ranging between 0.33 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.49) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.08)). The results of our study confirm a low or a similar risk for major GIB between patients receiving apixaban or dabigatran compared with warfarin, and apixaban appears to be associated with the lowest risk of GIB.

Medical care setting is associated with survival in acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the effect of the medical care setting on survival in patients admitted with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

To identify the organisational and care setting which provides the optimal survival in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of administrative data from a cohort of patients admitted to a Regional or Local hospital, and cared for in a gastroenterology or general ward.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

30 day survival for non-variceal bleeding and 42 day survival for variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Out of 3368 patients, the source of bleeding was non-variceal in 2980 (88.5%). Survival, adjusted for clinical and organisational factors, was higher in patients admitted to a gastroenterology ward vs other wards (OR = 2.02 p < 0.0006). Management in a gastroenterology ward in a Regional hospital provided a higher survival rate (95.6% ± 0.08) vs a non-gastroenterology ward in a Local hospital (92.9% ± 0.05 p < 0.01) or a non-gastroenterology ward in a Regional hospital (89.5% ± 0.01 p < 0.0001). Survival (94.0% ± 1.6) in a Local hospital with a gastroenterology ward was significantly higher than in a Regional hospital without (89.5% ± 1.1) p < 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Survival was optimal for patients treated in a gastroenterology ward independently of Regional or Local hospital setting.

Physicians' Perceptions of Proton Pump Inhibitor Risks and Recommendations to Discontinue: A National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To provide contemporary estimates of internists' perceptions of adverse effects associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and self-reported clinical use.

METHODS

We invited 799 internists, including specialists and postgraduate trainees, to complete an online survey. Topics included perceptions of PPI adverse effects (AEs) and effectiveness for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) prevention, changes in prescribing, and management recommendations for patients using PPIs for gastroesophageal reflux disease or UGIB prevention. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with appropriate PPI continuation in the scenario of a patient at high risk for UGIB.

RESULTS

Among 437 respondents (55% response rate), 10% were trainees and 72% specialized in general medicine, 70% were somewhat/very concerned about PPI AEs, and 76% had somewhat/very much changed their prescribing. A majority believed PPIs increase the risk for 6 of 12 AEs queried. Fifty-two percent perceived PPIs to be somewhat/very effective for UGIB prevention. In a gastroesophageal reflux disease scenario in which PPI can be safely discontinued, 86% appropriately recommended PPI discontinuation. However, in a high-risk UGIB prevention scenario in which long-term PPI use is recommended, 79% inappropriately recommended discontinuation. In this latter scenario, perceived effectiveness for bleeding prevention was strongly associated with continuing PPI (odds ratio 7.68, P < 0.001 for moderately; odds ratio 17.3, P < 0.001 for very effective). Other covariates, including concern about PPI AEs, had no significant association.

DISCUSSION

Most internists believe PPIs cause multiple AEs and recommend discontinuation even in patients at high risk for UGIB. Future interventions should focus on ensuring that PPIs are prescribed appropriately according to individual risks and benefits.

Timing of Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. The role of endoscopy performed within time frames shorter than 24 hours has not been adequately defined.

METHODS

To evaluate whether urgent endoscopy improves outcomes in patients predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death, we randomly assigned patients with overt signs of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow-Blatchford score of 12 or higher (scores range from 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of further bleeding or death) to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours (urgent-endoscopy group) or between 6 and 24 hours (early-endoscopy group) after gastroenterologic consultation. The primary end point was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 516 patients were enrolled. The 30-day mortality was 8.9% (23 of 258 patients) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 6.6% (17 of 258) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 6.9). Further bleeding within 30 days occurred in 28 patients (10.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 20 (7.8%) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.1). Ulcers with active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) with peptic ulcers in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the early-endoscopy group. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment was administered at initial endoscopy for 155 patients (60.1%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and for 125 (48.4%) in the early-endoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were at high risk for further bleeding or death, endoscopy performed within 6 hours after gastroenterologic consultation was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than endoscopy performed between 6 and 24 hours after consultation. (Funded by the Health and Medical Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01675856.).

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatments for Non-Variceal Upper GI Bleeding: A Review of the Literature

Endoscopic injection of glues, clotting factors, or sclerosing agents is a well-known therapy for the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), but less is known about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. In this setting, literature data are scarce, and no randomized controlled trials are available. We performed a review of the existing literature in order to evaluate the role of EUS-guided therapies in the management of NVUGIB. The most common treated lesions were Dieulafoy's lesions, pancreatic pseudoaneurysms, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Mostly, the treatments were performed as a salvage option after failure of conventional endoscopic hemostatic attempts, showing good efficacy and a good safety profile, also documented by Doppler monitoring of treated lesions. EUS-guided therapies may be an effective option in the treatment of refractory NVUGIB, thus avoiding radiological or surgical management. Nevertheless, available literature still lacks robust data.

Hemospray® during Emergency Endoscopy: Indonesia's First Experience from 37 Patients

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the main indications for performing endoscopy; this condition can be life threatening. In some cases, emergency endoscopy (EE) is necessary to identify the source and stop the bleeding. Recently, hemostatic powder was introduced, one of which was Hemospray® (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), which showed promising results for rapid hemostasis in primary treatment and salvage when conventional methods fails. Samples were taken retrospectively for a duration of 3 years since Hemospray was first introduced in Indonesia, from January 2016 to January 2019. The total number of EEs that used Hemospray were 37 procedures for 37 patients; 21 (56.8%) were males and 16 (43.2%) were females, while the average age was 67.8 years. Hemospray was used for upper GIB in 30 cases (81.1%) and for lower GIB in 7 (18.9%). Hemospray was used as monotherapy for 24 patients (64.9%) and as secondary modality for 13 (35.1%). The primary treatment was argon plasma coagulation in 8 cases (21.6%), adrenaline in 4 (10.8%), and Histoacryl® in 1 (2.7%). The mortality rate was 37.8% (n = 14); most deaths occurred within 30 days after the EE was performed, and none of the deaths was related to endoscopy or GIB. Hemospray was able to achieve hemostasis in all cases. Furthermore, there was no event of rebleeding. When conventional modalities alone were inadequate, the combination with Hemospray appeared to be able to control the bleeding. One of the main advantages of Hemospray is the ease in reaching difficult areas, and it require less skill compared to conventional modalities.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.

Prognostic value of risk scoring systems for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the deadliest complications of cirrhosis, with a high risk of in-hospital rebleeding and mortality. Some risk scoring systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been developed. However, for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding, data regarding the predictive value of these prognostic scores in predicting in-hospital outcomes are limited and controversial.

AIM

To validate and compare the overall performance of selected prognostic scoring systems for predicting in-hospital outcomes in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding.

METHODS

From March 2017 to June 2019, cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University. The clinical Rockall score (CRS), AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS), Canada-United Kingdom-Australia score (CANUKA), Child-Turcotte-Pugh score (CTP), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD-Na were calculated. The overall performance of these prognostic scoring systems was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 330 cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding were enrolled; the rates of in-hospital rebleeding and mortality were 20.3% and 10.6%, respectively. For in-hospital rebleeding, the discriminative ability of the CTP and CRS were clinically acceptable, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) of 0.717 (0.648-0.787) and 0.716 (0.638-0.793), respectively. The other tested scoring systems had poor discriminative ability (AUROCs < 0.7). For in-hospital mortality, the CRS, CTP, AIMS65, MELD-Na and MELD showed excellent discriminative ability (AUROCs > 0.8). The AUROCs of the mGBS, CANUKA and GBS were relatively small, but clinically acceptable (AUROCs > 0.7). Furthermore, the calibration of all scoring systems was good for either in-hospital rebleeding or death.

CONCLUSION

For cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding, in-hospital rebleeding and mortality rates remain high. The CTP and CRS can be used clinically to predict in-hospital rebleeding. The performances of the CRS, CTP, AIMS65, MELD-Na and MELD are excellent at predicting in-hospital mortality.