Optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Optimal endoscopy timing in elderly patients presenting with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the optimal endoscopy time in elderly patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) based on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients over 65 years of age presenting with NVUGIB are three patient groups based on endoscopy timing: very early endoscopy (< 12 h), early endoscopy (12-24 h) and late endoscopy (> 24 h). Endoscopic intervention was undertaken during the first 12 h for patients who had unstable hemodynamic settings, ongoing bleeding, or a low hematocrit despite transfusion. The clinical outcomes investigated were: The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with the need for endoscopic intervention, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay considered as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The study population was 468, 260 of whom were ≥ 65 years. Based on the timing of endoscopy, very early endoscopy (within 12 h) was performed in 180 (69.2%) patients aged > 65 years and 150 (72.1%) younger patients (p > 0.05). Early endoscopy (12-24 h) was performed in patients aged > 65 years and younger patients 53 (20.4%) vs. 41 (19.7%), respectively, while late endoscopy (24-48 h) was performed in 27 (10.4%) vs. 17 (8.2%) patients, respectively (p > 0.05, for all parameters). The clinical results of subgroups based on endoscopy time in the ≥ 65 population and comparisons between groups. When groups were compared, it was found that the very early endoscopy group had a considerably lower likelihood of need for surgical/radiological intervention than the late endoscopy group [3 (1,7) vs. (3,7), p = 0.016], and 30-day mortality rates by the endoscopy timing were statistically significantly different in the very early group (15.6%), early endoscopy group (7.5%), and late endoscopy group (29.6%) (p < 0.05, for all groups). Endoscopy time within 24-48 h (late) (OR: 3.133, 95%Cl: 1.127-8.713, p: 0.029) was an independent predictor of rebleeding during the hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Early endoscopy may benefit the management of acute UGIB, especially in the elderly population with high comorbidities and the severity of bleeding.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children: Current Management, Controversies, and Advances

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in children has many causes, with its prevalence varying by age. Often presenting as hematemesis or melena, the initial treatment is stabilization of the patient, including protection of the airway, fluid resuscitation, and a transfusion hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/L. Endoscopy should be performed with the goal of using combinations of therapies to treat a bleeding lesion, generally involving epinephrine injection along with either cautery, hemoclips, or hemospray. This review discusses the diagnosis and treatment of variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in children with a focus on current advances in the treatment of severe UGIB.

Surgical Emergencies in the ICU

Surgical emergencies are common in the critical care setting and require prompt diagnosis and management. Here, we discuss some of the surgical emergencies involving the gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and genitourinary sites. In addition, foreign body aspiration and necrotizing soft-tissue infections have been elaborated. Clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, keys examination findings, diagnostic modalities, and medical as well as surgical treatment options for these potentially fatal illnesses.

Safety and efficacy of emergency transarterial embolization for mesenteric bleeding

Background

Patients with spontaneous or traumatic active mesenteric bleeding cannot be treated endoscopically. Transarterial embolization can serve as a potential alternative to emergency surgery. Literature on transarterial embolization for mesenteric bleeding remains very scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transarterial embolization for mesenteric bleeding. We reviewed all consecutive patients admitted for mesenteric bleeding to the interventional radiology department, in a tertiary center, between January 2010 and March 2021. Mesenteric bleeding was defined as mesenteric hematoma and contrast extravasation and/or pseudoaneurysm visible on pre-operative CT scan. We evaluated technical success, clinical success, and complications.

Results

Among the 17 patients admitted to the interventional department for mesenteric bleeding, 15 presented with active mesenteric bleeding requiring transarterial embolization with five patients with hemodynamic instability. Mean age was 67 ± 14 years, including 12 (70.6%) males. Technical success was achieved in 14/15 (93.3%) patients. One patient with technical failure was treated by percutaneous embolization with NBCA-Lipiodol mixture. Three patients (20%) had early rebleeding: two were treated by successful repeat embolization and one by surgery. One patient (6.7%) had early death within 30 days and two patients (13.3%) had late death after 30 days. Mean length of hospitalization was 12.8 ± 7 days. There were no transarterial embolization-related ischemic complications.

Conclusion

Transarterial embolization is a safe and effective technique for treating mesenteric bleeding even in patients with hemodynamic instability. Transarterial embolization doesn’t close the door to surgery and could be proposed as first intention in case of mesenteric bleeding.

Optimal timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common indication for urgent endoscopy, but the correct timing of endoscopy in these patients is still debated. Our systematic review with meta-analysis was aimed at investigating the potential clinical benefit of very early endoscopy for UGIB patients. We performed an electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to 23rd May 2020 and considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing management of UGIB patients by very early vs early endoscopy. Only five RCTs were considered eligible for quantitative analysis, with a total population of 926 cases (468 in the very early endoscopy arm and 458 in the early). The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit for very early endoscopy compared to early endoscopy in terms of risk of rebleeding, mortality, ICU admission, blood transfusion, surgery and length of hospital stay. However, our results showed a significantly higher need for haemostatic treatment when very early endoscopy was performed (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.42, p < 0.01) in comparison to early endoscopy.