Bleeding After Endoscopic Procedures in Patients With Chronic Hematologic Thrombocytopenia

Clinical impact of endoscopy in severely thrombocytopenic patients with hematologic malignancy experiencing gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a major cause of hospitalization worldwide. Patients with hematologic malignancies have a higher risk of GIB as a result of thrombocytopenia and platelet dysfunction. There is no consensus on the optimal platelet level that would be safe for endoscopic intervention, although a platelet level of > 50 × 109 / L was suggested based on expert opinion. There is a paucity of data on whether endoscopic intervention and the timing of endoscopy impacted the outcome of patients with hematologic malignancy and severe thrombocytopenia who experienced acute overt GIB.

AIM

To assess the safety of endoscopic intervention of inpatients with hematological malignancies and severe thrombocytopenia presenting with acute overt GIB.

METHODS

This is a single center retrospective study. The data was collected from the electronic health record from 2018 to 2020. Inpatients with hematologic malignancy who presented with acute overt GIB and platelet count ≤ 50 × 109/L were included in the study. Outcomes included mortality, transfusion requirements, length of stay, intensive care unit admission and recurrent bleeding. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of urgent endoscopy within 24 hours of GIB vs endoscopy > 24 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were identified. The mean platelet count is 24.3 in the endoscopy arm and 14.6 in the conservative management arm. There was no statistically significant difference between patients who had endoscopy vs conservative management in 30-day (P = 0.13) or 1 year (P = 0.78) mortality, recurrent bleeding (P = 0.68), transfusion of red blood cells (P = 0.47), platelets (P = 0.31), or length of stay (P = 0.94). A subgroup analysis comparing urgent endoscopy within 24 hours compared with delayed endoscopy showed urgent endoscopy was not associated with improved 30-day or 1 year mortality (P = 0.11 and 0.46, respectively) compared to routine endoscopy, but was associated with decreased recurrent bleeding in 30 days (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Medical supportive treatment without endoscopy could be considered as an alternative to endoscopic therapy for patients with hematologic malignancy complicated by severe thrombocytopenia and acute non-variceal GIB.

Safety of Endoscopic Procedures in Thrombocytopenia and Neutropenia: Embracing Assurance

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the post-endoscopic adverse events in patients with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Current guidelines do not provide clear direction on this topic.

AIM

We explore the pooled rates of safety and adverse effects of endoscopic interventions in thrombocytopenia and neutropenia patients via a systematic review & meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases, including Medline, Scopus, and Embase, were searched (in May 2023) using specific terms for studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of endoscopy in patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model. I2% heterogeneity was used to assess the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Six studies and four studies evaluated endoscopic outcomes in patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia respectively with mean age was 56 years. The pooled rate of total post-biopsy bleeding and total post-polypectomy bleeding among patients with thrombocytopenia was 4% (95% CI 1-11), I2 = 84%, and 12% (95% CI 3-36) I2 = 43%. The total rate of post procedure-related bleeding in thrombocytopenia was 5% (95% CI 1-14) I2 = 95%. The pooled rate of post-endoscopic infection (fever from any cause, bacteremia) in neutropenia was 10% (95% CI 3-28%) I2 = 96%. On sub analysis, the pooled rate of bacteremia and 30 days all-cause mortality in neutropenia was 4% (95% CI 3-5%) I2 = 0% and 13% (95% CI 4-34%) I2 = 95% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our data supports the notion that endoscopic procedures are safe for neutropenic, thrombocytopenic patients with suitable indications and reasonable functional status and have an acceptable risk/benefit ratio.

The Safety of Endoscopic Procedures in Patients With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Endoscopic procedures are essential in gastroenterology but pose significant risks for thrombocytopenic patients who have lower platelet counts, increasing the likelihood of bleeding complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess bleeding risks in thrombocytopenic patients undergoing various endoscopic procedures. A comprehensive search was conducted across databases like PubMed, MEDLINE, and EBSCO, using stringent criteria for inclusion and exclusion, with study quality assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and thrombocytopenia severity classified by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. Statistical analysis focused on bleeding event incidence rates at different platelet count thresholds, utilizing RevMan Web (Cochrane, London, UK) and Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA). The search yielded 1,675 potential articles, but only three retrospective cohort studies were selected. Results showed a significant increase in bleeding risk for patients with platelet counts below 50,000/mm3, particularly under 25,000/mm3, with a 5.5% prevalence of post-procedure bleeding in moderate to severe thrombocytopenic patients versus 4.0% in those with higher counts, and a threefold higher risk in severe thrombocytopenia. The study highlights the need for meticulous pre-procedure assessments in thrombocytopenic patients and points out disparities in guideline recommendations, suggesting personalized approaches based on patient-specific risks. It underscores balancing diagnostic yield against bleeding risks, especially in severe thrombocytopenia, and discusses the controversial role of prophylactic platelet transfusions, advocating for a nuanced approach. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides critical insights into managing thrombocytopenia in endoscopic procedures, emphasizing the importance of individualized patient assessment and adherence to evolving guidelines, and underlining the necessity of further research to refine these guidelines and improve patient safety and outcomes in this challenging clinical scenario.

Prediction and management of bleeding during endoscopic necrosectomy for pancreatic walled-off necrosis: results of a large retrospective cohort at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) provide an endoscopic method for management of walled-off necrosis (WON) and a gateway for the performance of endoscopic necrosectomy (EN). However, bleeding may occur in up to 20% of EN procedures. Predictive factors for bleeding in this patient population are unknown, and there is no agreed-on algorithm for the management of bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate preprocedural risk factors for bleeding in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage or EN for WON.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing EN for WON was reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, concurrent medications, and etiology of pancreatitis were recorded. Pre-, peri-, and postprocedural clinical variables were compared using the χ² test and independent t test.

RESULTS

Between June 2014 and October 2020, 536 ENs were performed in 151 patients. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred during 28 procedures (5.2%) in 18 patients (11.9%). Endoscopic hemostasis was attempted in 8 patients (10 procedures). Eight patients (10 procedures) in total were treated by interventional radiology (IR). Thrombocytopenia (P = .006) and cirrhosis (P = .049) were associated with intraprocedural bleeding, although thrombocytopenia was present in only 1 patient. Identification of a vessel within the cavity endoscopically was also associated with bleeding (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, identification of a vessel within the cavity endoscopically remained a strong predictor of bleeding (P < .001), whereas cirrhosis was no longer significant. Patients who required IR for hemostasis were transfused with significantly more blood before the procedure than patients who did not (3.4 units vs .67 units, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

EN for WON was associated with a 5.2% per-procedure risk of bleeding and an 11.9% per-patient bleeding risk. Identification of a vessel within the cavity during endoscopy is predictive of bleeding during EN. Patients who require more transfusions before endoscopy may require earlier intervention by IR.

Assessing the yield and safety of endoscopy in acute graft-vs-host disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplant

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) graft-vs-host disease (aGVHD) is the most complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in patients with hematologic malignancy. Limited data exists on endoscopic evaluation of GVHD in post-HSCT patients with differing GI symptoms. Further, the diagnostic value of gross endoscopic findings as well as the safety of endoscopy in this commonly thrombocytopenic and neutropenic patient population remains unclear.

AIM

To understand the diagnostic value of symptoms and gross endoscopic findings as well as safety of endoscopy in aGVHD patients.

METHODS

We analyzed 195 endoscopies performed at City of Hope in patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT less than 100 d prior for hematologic malignancy and were subsequently evaluated for aGVHD via endoscopy. The yield, sensitivity, and specificity of diagnosing aGVHD were calculated for upper and lower endoscopy, various GI tract locations, and presenting symptoms.

RESULTS

Combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) demonstrated a greater diagnostic yield for aGVHD (83.1%) compared to EGD (66.7%) or FS (77.2%) alone with any presenting symptom. The upper and lower GI tract demonstrated similar yields regardless of whether patients presented with diarrhea (95.7% vs 99.1%) or nausea/vomiting (97.5% vs 96.8%). Normal-appearing mucosa was generally as specific (91.3%) as abnormal mucosa (58.7%-97.8%) for the presence of aGVHD. Adverse events such as bleeding (1.0%), infection (1.0%), and perforation (0.5%) only occurred in a small proportion of patients, with no significant differences in those with underlying thrombocytopenia (P = 1.000) and neutropenia (P = 0.425).

CONCLUSION

Combined EGD and FS with biopsies of normal and inflamed mucosa demonstrated the greatest diagnostic yield regardless of presenting symptom and appears to be safe in this population of patients.

Safety of endoscopy in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cancer patients are prone to thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, which increase the risk of bleeding and infection. We assessed the safety of endoscopic procedures in cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia.

METHODS

We studied consecutive cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia who underwent endoscopic procedures from 2010 through 2015. Neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <1000 cells/μL, and thrombocytopenia as a platelet count <100 × 10³/μL. Univariate and multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to assess factors associated with risk of adverse events (AEs) or death.

RESULTS

We identified 588 patients who underwent 783 procedures; 608 procedures were performed in the setting of thrombocytopenia and 675 procedures in the setting of neutropenia. Concurrent neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were recorded in 500 endoscopies. Twenty-four patients (4.1%) experienced infectious AEs, whereas 29 (4.9%) experienced bleeding AEs within 1 week of the procedure. On multivariate analysis, platelet count ≤50 × 10³/μL was associated with risk of bleeding AEs. In contrast, poor performance status was associated with increased risk of infection AEs (P < .01). No association was observed between low ANC and infectious AEs. Poor performance status (P < .01) and platelet count ≤100 × 10³/μL (P < .05) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality. A persistent platelet count <20 × 10³/μL after the procedure, with a baseline platelet count of ≤20 × 10³/μL before the procedure, was associated with significant risk of bleeding AEs compared with a platelet count >20 × 10³/μL after the procedure (P < .01); furthermore, if the platelet count increased to >50 × 10³/μL after the procedure, the bleeding risk after the procedure was greatly reduced (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic procedures are relatively safe in cancer patients with platelet count >50 × 10³/μL. Nevertheless, a platelet count of ≥20 × 10³/μL could be an appropriate threshold for platelet transfusion if 50 × 10³/μL is difficult to achieve. The functional status of the patient, in the absence of the need for urgent or necessary endoscopic interventions, should be considered when deciding whether to perform endoscopy. The risk of procedure and the ANC did not seem to affect the outcomes.