Timing of colonoscopy and outcomes in patients with lower GI bleeding: a nationwide population-based study

Evaluation of the Jichi Medical University diverticular hemorrhage score in the clinical management of acute diverticular bleeding with emergency or elective endoscopy: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Emergency endoscopic hemostasis for colonic diverticular bleeding is effective in preventing serious consequences. However, the low identification rate of the bleeding source makes the procedure burdensome for both patients and providers. We aimed to establish an efficient and safe emergency endoscopy system.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the usefulness of a scoring system (Jichi Medical University diverticular hemorrhage score: JD score) based on our experiences with past cases. The JD score was determined using four criteria: CT evidence of contrast agent extravasation, 3 points; oral anticoagulant (any type) use, 2 points; C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dL, 1 point; and comorbidity index ≥3, 1 point. Based on the JD score, patients with acute diverticular bleeding who underwent emergency or elective endoscopy were grouped into JD ≥3 or JD <3 groups, respectively. The primary and secondary endpoints were the bleeding source identification rate and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The JD ≥3 and JD <3 groups included 35 and 47 patients, respectively. The rate of bleeding source identification, followed by the hemostatic procedure, was significantly higher in the JD ≥3 group than in the JD <3 group (77% vs. 23%, p <0.001), with a higher JD score associated with a higher bleeding source identification rate. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of clinical outcomes, except for a higher incidence of rebleeding at one-month post-discharge and a higher number of patients requiring interventional radiology in the JD ≥3 group than in the JD <3 group. Subgroup analysis showed that successful identification of the bleeding source and hemostasis contributed to a shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

We established a safe and efficient endoscopic scoring system for treating colonic diverticular bleeding. The higher the JD score, the higher the bleeding source identification, leading to a successful hemostatic procedure. Elective endoscopy was possible in the JD <3 group when vital signs were stable.

LONG-HOSP Score: A Novel Predictive Score for Length of Hospital Stay in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding - A Multicenter Nationwide Study

INTRODUCTION

Length of stay (LOS) in hospital affects cost, patient quality of life, and hospital management; however, existing gastrointestinal bleeding models applicable at hospital admission have not focused on LOS. We aimed to construct a predictive model for LOS in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 8,547 patients emergently hospitalized for ALGIB at 49 hospitals (the CODE BLUE-J Study). A predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed using the baseline characteristics of 7,107 patients and externally validated in 1,440 patients. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis assessed the impact of additional variables during hospitalization on LOS.

RESULTS

Focusing on baseline characteristics, a predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed, the LONG-HOSP score, which consisted of low body mass index, laboratory data, old age, nondrinker status, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, facility with ≥800 beds, heart rate, oral antithrombotic agent use, symptoms, systolic blood pressure, performance status, and past medical history. The score showed relatively high performance in predicting prolonged hospital stay and high hospitalization costs (area under the curve: 0.70 and 0.73 for derivation, respectively, and 0.66 and 0.71 for external validation, respectively). Next, we focused on in-hospital management. Diagnosis of colitis or colorectal cancer, rebleeding, and the need for blood transfusion, interventional radiology, and surgery prolonged LOS, regardless of the LONG-HOSP score. By contrast, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

At hospital admission for ALGIB, our novel predictive model stratified patients by their risk of prolonged hospital stay. During hospitalization, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

Effect of Patient Age on Timing of Inpatient Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Outcomes for Non-variceal Upper GI Bleeds

Background Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is typically performed within 24 hours of presentation for patients admitted to a hospital for patients presenting with a non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB). To date, no studies have been performed to identify the impact of patient age on the timing of inpatient EGD and patient outcomes in non-variceal UGIB. Our aim was to assess the differences in the timing of EGD, blood transfusion requirements, development of hemorrhagic shock, development of acute renal failure, mortality, length of stay, and total hospital charges for patients aged 18-59 and those aged 60 and older. Methods Admissions for non-variceal UGIB were identified from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2016 and 2017. Patients who initially presented with hemorrhagic shock were excluded. Patients were divided into two age groups, those aged 18-59 and those aged 60 or older. We classified EGDs as early and delayed. Since the NIS database identifies days as midnight to midnight, we categorized early EGDs as those performed on day 0 and day 1. Delayed EGD were categorized as those performed on days 2 and 3. Multivariate logistic regression was performed on propensity-matched data to compare EGD timing, blood transfusion requirements, development of post-hospitalization hemorrhagic shock, development of acute renal failure, and mortality. The following patient and hospital variables were used in regression models: race, sex, insurance status, income quartile, mortality risk score, illness severity score, admission month, admission day, type of admission, region, bed size, and hospital teaching status. Finally, weighted two-sample T-tests were used to compare the length of stay and total hospitalization cost. Results A total of 12,449 weighted cases of inpatient non-variceal UGIB were included in this study. Patients aged 60 and older were more likely to die during the hospitalization (OR= 1.661, 95%CI: 1.108-2.490, p= 0.014), require blood transfusion (OR= 1.257, 95%CI: 1.131-1.396, p<0.001), and develop acute renal failure (OR= 1.672, 95%CI: 1.447-1.945, p<0.001). Patients aged 60 and older were also less likely to receive an early EGD (OR= 0.850, 95%CI: 0.752-0.961, p= 0.009). Total hospital costs (95%CI: -1397.77 - -4005.68, p<0.001) and length of stay (95%CI: -0.428 - -0.594, p<0.001) were both lower in patients aged 18-59 years. There was no difference in the development of post-hospitalization hemorrhagic shock between the two groups (OR= 0.984, 95%CI: 0.707-1.369, p= 0.923). Conclusions Patients aged 60 and older were less likely to have an early EGD and more likely to have worse outcomes. They had increased rates of inpatient mortality, blood transfusion requirements, development of acute renal failure, increased total hospital costs, and longer lengths of stay. There were no differences in the development of post-hospitalization hemorrhagic shock between the two groups.

Timing of colonoscopy in acute lower GI bleeding: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to determine the optimal timing of colonoscopy and factors that benefit patients who undergo early colonoscopy for acute lower GI bleeding.

METHODS

We identified 10,342 patients with acute hematochezia (CODE BLUE-J study) admitted to 49 hospitals in Japan. Of these, 6270 patients who underwent a colonoscopy within 120 hours were included in this study. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was used to adjust for baseline characteristics among early (≤24 hours, n = 4133), elective (24-48 hours, n = 1137), and late (48-120 hours, n = 1000) colonoscopy. The average treatment effect was evaluated for outcomes. The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding rate.

RESULTS

The early group had a significantly higher rate of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification and a shorter length of stay than the elective and late groups. However, the 30-day rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the early group than in the elective and late groups. Interventional radiology (IVR) or surgery requirement and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ among groups. The interaction with heterogeneity of effects was observed between early and late colonoscopy and shock index (shock index <1, odds ratio [OR], 2.097; shock index ≥1, OR, 1.095; P for interaction = .038) and performance status (0-2, OR, 2.481; ≥3, OR, .458; P for interaction = .022) for 30-day rebleeding. Early colonoscopy had a significantly lower IVR or surgery requirement in the shock index ≥1 cohort (OR, .267; 95% confidence interval, .099-.721) compared with late colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy increased the rate of SRH identification and shortened the length of stay but involved an increased risk of rebleeding and did not improve mortality and IVR or surgery requirement. Early colonoscopy particularly benefited patients with a shock index ≥1 or performance status ≥3 at presentation.

Optimal candidates for early colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Early colonoscopy has not shown any advantages over elective colonoscopy in reducing the risk of early rebleeding (≤ 30 days) after acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB). Considering the heterogeneity among patients with ALGIB, we sought to evaluate appropriate candidates for early colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 592 patients with ALGIB were enrolled, and the clinical outcomes of early colonoscopy were investigated. Thereafter, the participants were divided into two groups: the recent bleeding group (n = 445), with hematochezia 0-6 h before hospital arrival, and non-recent bleeding group (n = 147). The clinical outcomes yielded by early colonoscopy were assessed in each group.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis including the entire population revealed that early colonoscopy (< 24 h) did not reduce the risk of early rebleeding (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.39). However, in the subgroup analysis, early colonoscopy independently reduced the risk of early rebleeding in the recent bleeding group (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94). Moreover, a reduction in the need for radiological or surgical intervention (AOR, 0.34), transfusion (AOR, 0.62), and prolonged hospitalization (AOR, 0.42), as well as improvement in diagnostic yield (AOR, 1.78) and endoscopic treatment rates (AOR, 1.66), were observed. Early colonoscopy did not improve the outcomes of the non-recent bleeding group.

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy is not required for all patients with ALGIB. However, it may be suitable for those with hematochezia 0-6 h before hospital arrival, as it reduces early rebleeding and improves clinical outcomes.

Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common surgical emergency requiring hospital admission and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Appropriate decision-making is essential to make a prompt diagnosis, accurate risk assessment, and proper resuscitation of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses, there is still controversy on various management issues like appropriate risk stratification, the timing of endoscopy, choosing an appropriate endoscopic, and radiological intervention in these groups of patients. As the usage of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet, and antithrombotic agents is common in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, the physician is challenged with proper management of these drugs. The present review summarizes the current strategies for risk stratification, localization of bleeding source, endoscopic and radiological intervention in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI, middle GI, and lower GI bleeding.

Diverticular Bleeding: A Clinical Image

A man in his 40’s was admitted to the general surgery ward with multiple episodes of large amounts of painless bright red per rectal (PR) bleeding and passage of clots. Urgent outpatient colonoscopy revealed a diverticulum which was associated with a wide diameter blood vessel originating from its base which was not actively bleeding. The clinical picture presented by the colonoscopy is one of the first to clearly identify large caliber blood vessels emerging from a colonic diverticulum.

Evaluating the impact of frailty on periprocedural adverse events and mortality among patients with GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Frailty is a known predictor of mortality and adverse events in the inpatient setting; however, it has not been studied as a modality to assess risk among patients undergoing endoscopy for GI bleeding (GIB). We aimed to determine the association between frailty status and risk of adverse events in hospitalized patients with GIB who underwent endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the 2016 and 2017 National Inpatient Sample database, using International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes to identify adult patients with GIB who underwent endoscopic procedures within 2 days of admission and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score to classify patients as frail or nonfrail. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the predictors of periprocedural adverse events, and marginal standardization analysis was performed to assess for possible interaction between age and frailty.

RESULTS

A total of 757,920 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 44.4% (336,895) were identified as frail and 55.6% (421,025) as nonfrail; 49.2% of frail patients had composite periprocedural adverse events compared with 25.5% of nonfrail patients (P < .001). Frail patients notably had more cardiovascular (32.1% vs 17.1%, P < .001), pulmonary (18.5% vs 4.3%, P < .001), GI (10.1% vs 6.1%, P < .001), and infectious (9.9% vs .7%, P < .001) adverse events compared with nonfrail patients. Frail patients also had higher all-cause inpatient mortality rates (4.8% vs .5%, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, positive frailty status was associated with a 2.13 times increased likelihood of having composite periprocedural adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients undergoing endoscopy for GIB, frailty status is associated with increased periprocedural adverse events including all-cause mortality. The use of frailty assessments can thus further guide clinical decision-making when considering endoscopy and risk of adverse events in adult patients with GI hemorrhage.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7-9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10: ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Colonoscopic Evaluation of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB): Practical Approach

BACKGROUND

Haematochesia (Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB) is the most common reason for endoscopic examination. Generaly it is caused by hemorrhoids and diverticular disease, but other anorectal conditions can also lead to LGIB. Recurrent bleeding may result in secondary iron deficiency anemia. Colonoscopy is the primary diagnostic option for establishing a diagnosis of colonic bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze symptoms and endoscopic finding (specialy hemorrhoids) who may be sources of LGIB.Second goal of this study is to estimate time from onset of symptoms to performance of a colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective study included 603 adult patients who underwent colonoscopy in General Hospital "Sv. Apostol Luka", Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between 1.1.2020 and 31.12.2020.

RESULTS

Average age of the examined population was 62±13,3years. According to the gender they were mostly men. To be exact,by percentage it was 53.7% of men and 46,3% of women, or by number: 324 men and 279 women. The most common indications for colonoscopy were LGIB (48,8%), abdominal pain and irregular stool. Most frequent endoscopic findings were hemorrhoids 42%. Normal findings had almost one third of all examinated patients. Combined findings-presence of more clinical entities in one patient were presented in 95 cases. In the group with hemorrhoids were almost two thirds of males, but there was no gender difference noted in between group with LGIB and without LGIB. More than half patients were older than 61 years. Anemia was presented in almost 20% of cases. Significantly it is higher frequency of abdominal pain, irregular stool and weight loss observed on the group without LGIB. Also, significantly more frequently patients with LGIB underwent colonoscopy in 0-30 days when compared with patients without LGIB (p=0,016).

CONCLUSION

In patients with haematochezia, taking a careful medical history is mandatory. Hemorrhoids, diverticular disease and colorectal cancers are the most common causes of bleeding. Patients with LGIB and abdominal pain were previously examined with colonoscopy. Completely colonoscopy is advocated to detect probable proximal lesions.

Efficacy of urgent colonoscopy for colonic diverticular bleeding: A propensity score-matched analysis using a nationwide database in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is considered to have good prognosis with conservative therapy, some cases are severe. The efficacy of urgent colonoscopy for CDB and clinical factors affecting CDB prognosis are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of urgent colonoscopy for CDB and identify risk factors for unfavorable events, including in-hospital death during admission, owing to CDB.

METHODS

We collected CDB patients' data using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database system. We divided eligible patients into urgent and elective colonoscopy groups using propensity score matching and compared endoscopic hemostasis and in-hospital death rates and length of hospital stay. We also conducted logistic regression analysis to identify clinical factors affecting CBD clinical events, including in-hospital death, a relatively rare CDB complication.

RESULTS

Urgent colonoscopy reduced the in-hospital death rate (0.35% vs 0.58%, P = 0.033) and increased the endoscopic hemostasis rate (3.0% vs 1.7%, P < 0.0001) compared with elective colonoscopy. Length of hospitalization was shorter in the urgent than in the elective colonoscopy group (8 vs 9 days, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis also revealed that urgent colonoscopy reduced in-hospital death (odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.97, P = 0.036) and increased endoscopic hemostasis (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.53-2.22, P <  0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Urgent colonoscopy for CDB may facilitate identification of the bleeding site and reduce in-hospital death. The necessity and appropriate timing of urgent colonoscopy should be considered based on patients' condition.

Trends in hospitalization, mortality, and timing of colonoscopy in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and study aims Current guidelines conditionally recommend performing early colonoscopy (EC) (< 24 hours) in patients admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). It remains unclear whether this practice is implemented widely. Therefore, we used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to investigate trends for timing of colonoscopy in patients admitted with acute LGIB. We also assessed trend of hospitalization and mortality in patients with LGIB.

Patients and methods Adult patients with LGIB admitted from 2005 to 2014 were examined. ICD-9-CM codes were used to extract LGIB discharges. Trends were assessed using Cochrane-Armitage test. Factors associated with mortality, cost of hospitalization, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed by multivariable mixed-effects and exact-matched logistic, linear regression, and accelerated-failure time models, respectively.

Results A total of 814,647 patients with LGIB were included. The most common etiology of LGIB was diverticular bleeding (49 %) and 45 % of patients underwent EC. Over the study period, there was no change in the trend of colonoscopy timing. Although admission with LGIB increased over the study period, the mortality rate decreased for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Independent predictors of mortality were age, surgery (colostomy/colectomy) during admission, intensive care unit admission, acute kidney injury, and blood transfusion requirement. Timing of colonoscopy was not associated with mortality benefit. However, cost of hospitalization was $ 1,946 lower and LOS was 1.6 days shorter with EC.

Conclusion Trends in colonoscopy timing in management of LGIB have not changed over the years. EC is associated with lower LOS and cost of hospitalization but it does not appear to improve inpatient mortality.

Readmissions Rates After Myocardial Infarction for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A National Perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one most common complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to determine the incidence, in-hospital outcomes, associated healthcare burden and predictors of GI bleeding within 30 days after AMI.

METHODS

Data were extracted from Nationwide Readmission Database 2010-2014. Patients were included if they had a primary diagnosis of ST or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were admissioned in December, aged less than 18 years and a diagnosis of type-2 MI. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission with upper or lower GI bleeding. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, etiology of bleeding, in-hospital complications, procedures, length of stay, and total hospitalization charges. Independent predictors of readmission were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Out of the 3,520,241 patients discharged with ACS, 10,018 (0.3%) were readmitted with GI bleeding within 30 days of discharge. 60% had lower GI bleeding. Most common sources suspected were GI cancers in 17% and hemorrhoidal bleeding in 10%. In hospital mortality rate for readmission was 3.6%. Independent predictors of readmission were age, Charlson comorbidity score, history of chronic kidney disease, GI tumor, inflammatory bowel disease and artificial heart valve. Type of treatment for AMI had no impact on readmission. Patients readmitted had higher rates of shock (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-3.72).

CONCLUSIONS

In the first nationwide study, 30-day incidence of GI bleeding after AMI is 0.3%. GI bleeding complicating AMI carries a substantial in-hospital mortality and cost of care.

Severe Acute Colonic Diverticular Bleeding: The Efficacy of Rapid Bowel Preparation With 1 L Polyethylene Glycol Ascorbate Solution and Direct Endoscopic Hemoclipping for Successful Hemostasis

Colonic diverticular bleeding is an established cause of painless acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Colonoscopy, performed within 24 hours of presentation, is the usual initial diagnostic procedure in such patients. In order to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of urgent colonoscopy, adequate colon cleansing is required in patients with signs and symptoms of ongoing bleeding. We hereby delineate the importance of rapid bowel preparation with a very-low-volume novel 1 L polyethylene glycol ascorbate solution in the setting of acute severe colonic diverticular bleeding. The 1-L regimen may demonstrate similar efficacy to that of traditional higher volume preparations and it can substantially reduce the time for bowel preparation. Therefore, it can be considered for bowel purge when colonoscopy has to be rapidly planned in critical patients. This article further illustrates that the endoscopic technique using epinephrine followed by direct hemoclipping may be added to the armamentarium for acute colonic diverticular hemorrhage as the first treatment, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbid conditions. While ample evidence surrounding the efficacy of the clipping method persists in the literature, rapid bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol ascorbate solution's imperativeness to achieve hemostasis with direct hemoclipping remains elusive.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: limited benefits from early colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial.

AIM

To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB.

METHODS

A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days).

CONCLUSION

In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.

External Validation of the Oakland Score to Assess Safe Hospital Discharge Among Adult Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the US

Importance

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), which manifests as blood in the colon or anorectum, is a common reason for hospitalization. In most patients, LGIB stops spontaneously with no in-hospital intervention. A risk score that could identify patients at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes could help improve the triage process and allow greater numbers of patients to receive outpatient management of LGIB.

Objective

To externally validate the Oakland Score, which was previously developed using a score threshold of 8 points to identify patients with LGIB who are at low risk of adverse outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter prognostic study was conducted in 140 US hospitals in the Hospital Corporation of America network. A total of 46 179 adult patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of LGIB between June 1, 2016, and October 15, 2018, were initially identified using diagnostic codes. Of those, 51 patients were excluded because they were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding, leaving a study population of 46 128 patients with LGIB. For the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, an additional 8061 patients were excluded because they were missing data on Oakland Score components or clinical outcomes, resulting in 38 067 patients included in the analysis. The study used area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 95% CIs for external validation of the model. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each score threshold (≤8 points, ≤9 points, and ≤10 points). Data were analyzed from October 16, 2018, to September 4, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Identification of patients who met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital and comparison of the performance of 2 score thresholds (≤8 points vs ≤10 points). Safe discharge was defined as the absence of blood transfusion, rebleeding, hemostatic intervention, hospital readmission, and death.

Results

Among 46 128 adult patients with LGIB, the mean (SD) age was 70.1 (16.5) years; 23 091 patients (50.1%) were female. Of those, 22 074 patients (47.9%) met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital. In this group, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (18.1) years, and 11 056 patients (50.1%) were female. In the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, which included only the 38 067 patients with complete data, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for safe discharge was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.87-0.87). An Oakland Score threshold of 8 points or lower identified 3305 patients (8.7%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 98.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Extension of the Oakland Score threshold to 10 points or lower identified 6770 patients (17.8%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 96.0% and 31.9%, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the Oakland Score consistently identified patients with acute LGIB who were at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes and whose conditions could safely be managed without hospitalization. The score threshold to identify low-risk patients could be extended from 8 points or lower to 10 points or lower to allow identification of a greater proportion of low-risk patients.

Urgent Versus Standard Colonoscopy for Management of Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common indication for hospitalization. However, the optimum timing of colonoscopy following patient presentation remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of urgent versus standard colonoscopy timing on management of acute LGIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed were searched up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared patients with hematochezia receiving urgent (<24 h) versus standard (>24 h) colonoscopy. Nonrandomized observational studies were also included based on the same criteria for additional analysis. Pooled estimates were calculated using random effects meta-analyses and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency statistic. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Of 3782 potentially relevant studies, 4 randomized controlled trials involving 463 patients met inclusion criteria. Urgent colonoscopy did not differ significantly to standard timing with respect to length of stay (LOS), units of blood transfused, rate of additional intervention required, or mortality. Colonoscopy-related outcomes such as patient complications, rebleeding rates, and diagnosis of bleeding source did not differ between groups. However, meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies (9 studies, n=111,950) revealed a significantly higher rate of mortality and complications requiring surgery in the standard group and shorter LOS in the urgent group. Overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low in the majority of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of colonoscopy in acute LGIB may not significantly affect patient outcomes. Timing should therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Effectiveness of risk scoring systems in predicting endoscopic treatment in colonic diverticular bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The identification of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) enables an endoscopic treatment and can improve the clinical outcome. However, SRH identification rate remains low. This study aims to investigate whether NOBLADS and Strate scoring systems are useful for predicting SRH identification rate of CDB pre-procedurally via colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective observational study, 302 patients who experienced their first episode of CDB from April 2008 to March 2018 were included. Patients were classified into SRH-positive and SRH-negative groups. The primary outcome was SRH identification rate. The secondary outcomes were active bleeding in SRH and early rebleeding rates. The usefulness of the NOBLADS and Strate scores as predicted values of SRH identification was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

There were 126 and 176 patients in the SRH-positive and SRH-negative groups, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for SRH identification using the NOBLADS score was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.80) and that using the Strate score was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.79). Active bleeding and early rebleeding rates increased according to each score. By setting the cut-off of the NOBLADS score to four points, treatment was possible in 70.2% (66/94) patients. Addition of extravasation at computed tomography to a NOBLADS score of ≧ 4 points allowed treatment of all patients (24/24).

CONCLUSIONS

Severity scoring in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding was effective for predicting SRH identification in CDB. We suggest that combination of these scorings and CT findings could offer a new therapeutic strategy.

Colonic diverticular disease

Diverticula are outpouchings of the intestinal wall and are common anatomical alterations detected in the human colon. Colonic diverticulosis (the presence of diverticula in the colon; referred to as diverticulosis) remains asymptomatic in most individuals but ~25% of individuals will develop symptomatic diverticulosis, termed colonic diverticular disease (also known as diverticular disease). Diverticular disease can range in severity from symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) to symptomatic disease with complications such as acute diverticulitis or diverticular haemorrhage. Since the early 2000s, a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of diverticulosis and diverticular disease, which encompasses genetic alterations, chronic low-grade inflammation and gut dysbiosis, has led to improvements in diagnosis and management. Diagnosis of diverticular disease relies on imaging approaches, such as ultrasonography, CT and MRI, as biomarkers alone are insufficient to establish a diagnosis despite their role in determining disease severity and progression as well as in differential diagnosis. Treatments for diverticular disease include dietary fibre, pharmacological treatments such as antibiotics (rifaximin), anti-inflammatory drugs (mesalazine) and probiotics, alone or in combination, and eventually surgery. Despite being effective in treating primary disease, their effectiveness in primary and secondary prevention of complications is still uncertain.

Colonoscopic management of diverticular disease

Diverticula are the most common incidental finding during routine colonoscopy, and their prevalence increases with patient age. The term “diverticular disease” encompasses the range of clinical manifestations and complications that can occur with colonic diverticula, including diverticular bleeding, diverticulitis-associated strictures, and acute diverticulitis. Colonoscopy is a vital tool in the diagnosis and management of diverticular disease and can be useful in a variety of regards. In this editorial, we concisely delineate the current approach to and practices in colonoscopic management of diverticular disease. In particular, we discuss treatment options for diverticular bleeding, propose consideration of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in patients with diverticulitis-associated strictures, and the need for diagnostic colonoscopy following an episode of acute diverticulitis in order to rule out underlying conditions such as colonic malignancy or inflammatory bowel disease. In addition, we offer practical tips for performing safe and successful colonoscopy in patients with dense diverticulosis coli.

British Society of Gastroenterology: diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

New guidelines have been produced through collaborative work between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Interventional Radiology, the Royal College of Radiologists, National Health Service Blood and Transplants and patient representatives. This is the first UK national guidance for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). The focus is the in-hospital management of adult patients presenting with acute LGIB. LGIB refers to patients presenting with bright or dark red blood per rectum, clots per rectum or blood mixed with stool. We provide a commentary and overview of the key features, with a particular focus on risk assessment, management, investigations, and radiological and endoscopic intervention.

Early Versus Standard Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Results of the BLEED Study

GOALS

The aim of our study was to examine differences in length of hospital stay (LOHS) between patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding who received either an early colonoscopy (within 24 h of presentation) or a standard colonoscopy (within 1 to 3 d).

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding has been extensively debated in recent literature, especially whether colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation is feasible and safe.

STUDY

In this single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial, patients presenting at the emergency department with acute hematochezia were eligible if they required hospital admission. A total of 132 patients were included. Primary outcome was LOHS. Secondary outcomes included yield of colonoscopy, blood transfusion requirements, recurrent bleedings, complications, interventions related to complications, and 30-day mortality. The follow-up period was 1 month.

RESULTS

In total, 63 patients were randomized for <24 hours colonoscopy and 69 for standard colonoscopy. In the intention to treat analysis, LOHS was significantly lower in patients that underwent an early colonoscopy, compared with the standard group: median 2.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) versus median 3.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) (P=0.009). Recurrent bleedings and hospital readmissions were significantly more frequent in the <24-hour group: 13% versus 3% (P=0.04) and 11% versus 2% (P=0.02), respectively. No difference was observed regarding the number of patients diagnosed with a confirmed or presumptive bleeding source. In both groups, blood transfusion rate was similar and 30-day mortality was 0.

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy reduces LOHS, but also results in lower clinical efficacy compared with standard colonoscopy.

Colonic diverticular bleeding and predictors of the length of hospitalization: An observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A significant percentage of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) experience bleeding that is severe enough to necessitate prolonged hospitalization. Prolonged hospitalization causes deterioration in patients' quality of life, as well as difficulties with cost-effective utilization of medical resources, and is a financial burden to the society. Therefore, we investigated the factors associated with the length of hospitalization for the optimal management of patients hospitalized with CDB.

METHODS

This study included patients who were hospitalized for the treatment of CDB and underwent colonoscopy between July 2008 and February 2016. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between the length of hospitalization and the patients' baseline characteristics, in-hospital procedures performed, and the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 223 patients. Diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] 3.4, P = 0.014) and blood transfusion (OR 3.1, P = 0.0006) were identified as risk factors for prolonged hospitalization (≥ 8 days). Urgent colonoscopy (OR 0.41, P = 0.0072) predicted a shorter length of hospitalization (≤ 7 days). The study also indicated that endoscopic treatment showed a stronger association with urgent colonoscopy (OR 7.8, P < 0.0001) than with elective colonoscopy and that urgent colonoscopy was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events or re-bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with elective colonoscopy, urgent colonoscopy shortens the length of hospitalization in patients with CDB. Moreover, it is not associated with an increased rate of adverse events. Urgent colonoscopy may be impracticable in a few cases; however, if possible, aggressive urgent colonoscopy should be considered for the efficient management of the patient's hospital stay.

The role of colonoscopy and endotherapy in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Colonoscopy is an integral diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the management of patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). After resuscitation, reversal of coagulopathy, and exclusion of a proximal source of bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed in most patients with LGIB. Bowel preparation, typically with polyethylene glycol based solutions, is needed to closely inspect the colonic mucosa for bleeding sources. Colonoscopy within 24 h is recommended for high-risk patients with ongoing bleeding, although there is limited evidence that this strategy improves clinical outcomes. When active or stigmata of bleeding is detected, endoscopic intervention is indicated and can reduce future rebleeding. The most common options for endoscopic intervention include clipping, endoscopic band ligation, and coagulation, however rigorous head-to-head comparisons of different endoscopic tools are unavailable. Future research is needed to determine the optimal timing of colonoscopy, appropriate reversal strategies for patients on antithrombotics, and the most effective endoscopic hemostatic therapy.

Rising Events and Improved Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Bleed With Shock in USA: A 12-year National Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Limited information is available based on single-center studies on trends of incidence and outcomes in gastrointestinal (GI) bleed with shock.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 2002 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample. Using ICD-9 codes we identified 6.4 million hospital discharges of GI bleed from National Inpatient Sample database. Events were analyzed based on type of GI bleed, in-hospital mortality, hemodynamic status, and use of blood products.

RESULTS

GI bleed with shock results in higher hospital mortality (20.77% with shock vs. 2.6% without shock). Between 2002 and 2013, there has been an increase in the percentage of upper and lower GI bleed with shock (1.35% to 4.92% and 1.49% to 3.06%) along with a reduction in mortality in both upper GI bleed with shock (26.9% to 13.8%) and lower GI bleed with shock (54.7% to 19.7%). Consistent with the rise in GI bleed with shock was an increase in blood product utilization. Packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion was associated with reduction in mortality in both nonvariceal upper GI bleed with shock (18.3% without pRBC vs. 13.9% receiving pRBC) and lower GI bleed with shock (36.05% without pRBC vs. 22.13% receiving pRBC), but did not affect mortality in variceal upper GI bleed with shock (31.79% vs. 32.22%).

CONCLUSIONS

GI bleed with shock carries a higher mortality and have been steadily increasing from 2002 to 2013. pRBC transfusion was associated in improved mortality in GI bleed with shock except variceal bleed.

Early Colonoscopy for Diverticular Bleeding Does Not Reduce Risk of Postdischarge Recurrent Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy within 24 hours (early colonoscopy) is recommended for patients with colonic diverticular bleeding, but it is unclear if this strategy improves postdischarge outcomes. We aimed to determine whether early colonoscopy is associated with decreased risk of rebleeding and hospital re-admission within 30 days.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using Marketscan (Truven Health Analytics, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI), a nationwide insurance claims database. From January 2004 through September 2015, patients with a primary diagnosis of diverticular bleeding who underwent inpatient colonoscopy were included. We used propensity score matching to account for differences between recipients of early vs delayed colonoscopy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the association between early colonoscopy and rebleeding or hospital re-admission within 30 days of discharge.

RESULTS

In total, 20,010 patients underwent colonoscopy for diverticular bleeding; 11,690 underwent early colonoscopy. After propensity matching, 8320 pairs of patients were analyzed. In the matched analysis, higher proportions of patients who received early colonoscopy underwent additional colonoscopies (73%), compared with patients who did not receive early colonoscopy (4%) (P < .0001), but lower proportions received endoscopic interventions (3% vs 8%; P < .0001). On multivariable analysis, early colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66; P = .007), transfusion requirement (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83; P < .0001), and baseline chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.49-3.04; P < .0001) were associated with increased risk of rebleeding within 30 days. Early colonoscopy (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03), endoscopic intervention (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .03), transfusion requirement (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.88-2.51; P < .0001), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P = .009), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.54; P < .0001) were associated with increased re-admission to the hospital within 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched analysis, we associated early colonoscopy with increased risk of rebleeding events and hospital re-admissions. However, these observations might be due to confounding factors.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology

This is the first UK national guideline to concentrate on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and has been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). The Guidelines Development Group consisted of representatives from the BSG Endoscopy Committee, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Interventional Radiology, the Royal College of Radiologists, NHS Blood and Transplant and a patient representative. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken and the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations appraised according to the GRADE(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. These guidelines focus on the diagnosis and management of acute LGIB in adults, including methods of risk assessment and interventions to diagnose and treat bleeding (colonoscopy, computed tomography, mesenteric angiography, endoscopic therapy, embolisation and surgery). Recommendations are included on the management of patients who develop LGIB while receiving anticoagulants (including direct oral anticoagulants) or antiplatelet drugs. The appropriate use of blood transfusion is also discussed, including haemoglobin triggers and targets.

Changing epidemiology and etiology of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) develops in the oesophagus, stomach or duodenum and has an incidence of 47/100,000. Lower GIB (LGIB) develops in the small bowel, colon or anorectum and has an incidence of 33/100,000. Where the incidence of UGIB has fallen, driven by helicobacter pylori eradication and the use of proton pump inhibitors, the incidence of LGIB may be increasing. Interventions such as early endoscopy, risk assessment and national guidelines have improved clinical outcomes but have had limited impact on the economic burden of GIB. Previously LGIB was thought to be less severe than UGIB, but contemporary data suggest that patients with LGIB tend to have a longer length of hospital stay and may be at higher risk of death or re-bleeding.

Risk stratification in upper and upper and lower GI bleeding: Which scores should we use?

Risk assessment is widely used in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) however no score accurately predicts all important clinical outcomes. This review discusses the performance of the Rockall score, pre-endsocopy Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score, AIMS-65 and newer scores such as Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva and CANUKA scores. The quality of external validation varies considerably for each score. There is a relative lack of risk scores available for use in lower GI bleeding (LGIB) but recent developments have focussed on the identification of low risk patients. The BLEED, NOBLADS, Strate and Sengupta scores have been developed to predict severe bleeding or death, each with varying performance. The Oakland score has been developed to identify patients at low risk of adverse outcomes who may be suitable for outpatient management. The comparative performance of the LGIB scores and Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 in the prediction of outcomes in LGIB is also discussed.

Colonoscopy in Patients With Postmyocardial Infarction Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Nationwide Analysis

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of colonoscopy in the setting of post myocardial infarction (MI) gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in a large population-based data set.

BACKGROUND

The literature to substantiate the proposed safety of colonoscopy following an acute MI is limited.

STUDY

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007 to 2013) was utilized to identify all adult patients (age, 18 y or above) hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of ST-elevation MI and receiving left heart catheterization (STEMI-C). The outcomes of patients with concomitant diagnosis of GIB receiving endoscopic intervention with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy postcatheterization were compared with those who did not. Primary outcomes including mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

There were 131,752 patients with post-STEMI-C GIB (5.35% of all STEMI-C patients) and same admission colonoscopy was performed in 1599 patients (1.21%). Although the prevalence of post-STEMI-C GIB increased from 4.27% in 2007 to 5.87% in 2013 (P<0.001), patients receiving colonoscopy decreased from 1.42% to 1.09% (P<0.001) over the course of the study period. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients receiving no endoscopic intervention [odds ratio, 3.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.57, 8.31] or EGD alone (OR, 2.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.12, 6.49) have higher mortality compared with those receiving colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Same admission colonoscopy performed for post-STEMI-C GIB was associated with lower mortality. However, despite increased incidence of GIB in these patients during the study period, a lower percentage of patients received colonoscopy. These results suggest that colonoscopy is safe but underutilized in this setting.

Outcomes of Early Versus Delayed Colonoscopy in Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using a Hospital Administrative Database

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on whether early colonoscopy for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) alters 30-day mortality, performance of endoscopic intervention, or need for blood transfusion. Our primary objective was to determine whether early colonoscopy in LGIB is associated with decreased 30-day mortality using a large hospital administrative database.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized between January 2008 and September 2015 were identified using a validated, machine learning algorithm for identifying patients with LGIB. "Early" colonoscopy occurred by day 2 of admission and "late" colonoscopy between days 3 and 5. A propensity score for early colonoscopy was constructed using plausible confounders. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine factors associated with 30-day mortality, endoscopic intervention, and transfusion need. The propensity score was included as a confounding factor for mortality analysis in the multivariable model.

RESULTS

In total, 1204 patients underwent colonoscopy for LGIB. Of these, 295 patients (25%) underwent early colonoscopy, and these patients had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (P=0.001) and shorter length of stay (3 vs. 5 d, P=0.0001). Early colonoscopy was not associated with decreased 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR), 0.73; confidence interval (CI), 0.27-1.69], but was associated with increased endoscopic intervention (OR, 2.62; CI, 1.37-4.95) and decreased need for transfusion (OR, 0.65; CI, 0.49-0.87). On multivariable analysis adjusting for timing of colonoscopy, age, and propensity score for early colonoscopy, early colonoscopy was not associated with a decrease in 30-day mortality (OR, 1.37; CI, 0.50-3.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy does not affect 30-day mortality but may allow for earlier endoscopic intervention and decreased transfusion need.

Early colonoscopy in patients with acute diverticular bleeding is associated with improvement in healthcare-resource utilization

Background

Diverticular bleeding (DB) is the most common cause of severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in developed countries. The role of early colonoscopy (<24 hours) continues to remain controversial and data on early colonoscopy in acute DB are scant. We aimed to evaluate the effect of timing of colonoscopy on outcomes in patients with acute DB using a nationwide inpatient sample.

Methods

Data from the nationwide inpatient sample from 2012 to 2014 were used. The ninth version of the International Classification of Diseases coding system ICD 9 was used for patient selection. We included discharges with the primary and secondary inpatient diagnosis of diverticulosis with bleeding and diverticulitis with bleeding. Discharges with no primary or secondary diagnosis of diverticulosis with bleeding, diverticulitis with bleeding, patients who were less than 18 years old and those who did not undergo colonoscopy during the admission were excluded. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and total hospitalization costs.

Results

A total of 88 600 patients were included in our analysis, amongst whom 45 020 (50.8%) had colonoscopy within 24 hours of admission (early colonoscopy), while 43 580 (49.2%) patients had colonoscopy after 24 hours of admission (late colonoscopy). LOS was significantly lower in patients with early colonoscopy as compared to those with late colonoscopy (3.7 vs 5.6 days, P < 0.0001). Total hospitalization costs were also significantly lower in patients with early colonoscopy ($9317 vs $11 767, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality between both groups (0.7 vs 0.8%). After adjusting for potential confounders, the differences in LOS and total hospitalization costs between early and late colonoscopy remained statistically significant.

Conclusions

Early colonoscopy in acute DB significantly reduced LOS and total hospitalization costs. There was no significant difference in mortality observed. Performance of early colonoscopy in the appropriate patients presenting with acute DB can have potential cost-saving implications. Further research is needed to identify which patients would benefit from early colonoscopy in DB.

Patient Presentation, Risk Stratification, and Initial Management in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The approach to lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) has evolved over the last few years to incorporate a multidisciplinary management strategy. Although the causes of LGIB vary depending on the age and comorbid conditions of patients, the initial resuscitation and principles of optimizing patients' condition before endoscopic evaluation, when appropriate, are the cornerstones to clinical care. The role of risk stratification is to triage patients as well as to mobilize health care resources based on predicted outcomes. Individualized management according to patients' comorbid conditions has been a focus in most recent guidelines.

Colonoscopy in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Diagnosis, Timing, and Bowel Preparation

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding is bleeding from a colonic source. Rapid colon purge using 4 to 6 L of polyethylene glycol followed by early colonoscopy, within 24 hours of presentation, is recommended to optimize the detection and management of bleeding sources. Although the data are mixed, early colonoscopy seems to be associated with higher detection of bleeding lesions and therapeutic interventions. There is no clear benefit for early colonoscopy in terms of reduced duration of stay, rebleeding, transfusion requirement, or surgery compared with patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of early colonoscopy on clinically important outcomes.

Management of Diverticular Bleeding: Evaluation, Stabilization, Intervention, and Recurrence of Bleeding and Indications for Resection after Control of Bleeding

Diverticular bleeding is the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding with nearly 200,000 admissions in the United States annually. Less than 5% of patients with diverticulosis present with diverticular bleeding and present usually as painless, intermittent, and large volume of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Management algorithm for patients presenting with diverticular bleeding includes resuscitation followed by diagnostic evaluation. Colonoscopy is the recommended first-line investigation and helps in identifying the stigmata of recent hemorrhage and endoscopic management of the bleeding. Radionuclide scanning is the most sensitive but least accurate test due to low spatial resolution. Angiography is helpful when patients are actively bleeding and therapeutic interventions are performed with angioembolization. Surgery for diverticular bleeding is necessary when associated with hemodynamic instability and after failed endoscopic or angiographic interventions. When the bleeding site is localized preoperatively, partial colectomy is sufficient, but subtotal colectomy is necessary when localization is not possible preoperatively.

The role of early colonoscopy in patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The use of early colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is controversial, with disparate evidence. We aim to formally characterize the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 h) in managing acute LGIB.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search to August 2016 identified fully published and abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. Single-arm studies were also included to define incidence. Primary outcomes were overall rebleeding rates and time to rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events (AEs). Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 897 citations, 10 single-arm, 9 observational studies, and 2 RCTS were included (25,781 patients). Rebleeding was no different between patients undergoing early colonoscopy and controls (seven studies, OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.49-1.62), or RCT data only (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.52-1.62). Early colonoscopy detected more definitive sources of bleeding (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 2.00-8.49), and was associated with shorter LOS colonoscopy (WMD = -1.52, 95% CI -2.54 to -0.50 days). No other differences were noted between early and late colonoscopy. AEs occurred in 4.0%, (95% CI 2.9%; 5.4%) of early colonoscopies. Included studies were of low quality, with significant heterogeneity for some outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Early colonoscopy in acute LGIB does not decrease rebleeding, mortality or need for surgery, but is associated with increased detection of definitive sources of bleeding, shorter LOS, with low complication incidence. However, the quality of evidence is low, highlighting the need for additional high-level studies.

Day or overnight transfusion in critically ill patients: does it matter?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The timing of blood administration in critically ill patients is first driven by patients' needs. This study aimed to define the epidemiology and significance of overnight transfusion in critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicentre observational study including 874 critically ill patients receiving red blood cells, platelets, fresh frozen plasma (FFP) or cryoprecipitate. Characteristics of patients receiving blood only during the day (8 am up until 8 pm) were compared to those receiving blood only overnight (8 pm up until 8 am). Characteristics of transfusion were compared, and factors independently associated with major bleeding were analysed.

RESULTS

The 287 patients transfused during the day only had similar severity and mortality to the 258 receiving blood products overnight only. Although bleeding-related admission diagnoses were similar, major bleeding was the indication for transfusion in 12% of patients transfused in daytime only versus 30% of patients transfused at night only (P < 0·001). Similar total amount of blood products were transfused at day and night (2856 versus 2927); however, patients were more likely to receive FFP and cryoprecipitate at night compared with daytime. Overnight transfusion was independently associated with increased odds of major bleeding (odds ratio, 3·16, 95% confidence interval, 2·00-5·01).

CONCLUSION

Transfusion occurs evenly across day and night in ICU; nonetheless, there are differences in type of blood products administered that reflect differences in indication. Critically ill patients were more likely to receive blood for major bleeding at night irrespective of admission diagnosis.

Patients' comorbidities reduce the clinical value of emergency colonoscopy: results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Urgent endoscopy is often used to diagnose and sometimes treat acute upper gastrointestinal syndromes (hemorrhage, toxic ingestion, and occlusion). However, its suitability concerning the management of lower gastrointestinal conditions in emergency circumstances is controversial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 We studied the role of emergency colonoscopy in diagnosis and treatment of all consecutive patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal symptoms referred to our hospital on an emergency basis. All patients were first managed by physicians from the emergency room and/or the intensive care unit (ICU); the treatments included fluid resuscitation, blood transfusion, and antibiotic or cardiotonic as needed. Bowel cleansing was performed to purge the colon of clots, stool, and blood when clinically possible; alternatively, a bowel enema was used. Patients only underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan prior to the colonoscopy in clinically relevant situations. Colonoscopy was performed within 6 - 36 hours after hospitalization or the beginning of the clinical symptoms (hemorrhage, sepsis, colon distension) or occlusion, as assessed by abdominal CT scan.

RESULTS

 From 2010 to 2015, 603 patients underwent urgent colonoscopy; among them, 214 (36 %) presented with lower GI bleeding, while 264 (44 %) had symptoms suggestive of intestinal ischemia; almost half (49 %, n = 295) of the patients were hospitalized in the ICU. Patients received therapies, such as clips (15 %), epinephrine injections (5 %), bipolar coagulation (7 %), or devolvulation (3 %) using colonoscopy or antibiotic therapy when needed. No perforation was observed after colonoscopy and only three cases of hemorrhage recurrence were documented as complications after the procedure. Overall, 192 patients died within 1 month after colonoscopy due to four independent risk situations, as follows: septic shock, heart transplantation, multiorgan failure, and ischemic colitis. Only 67 (35 %) underwent urgent intestinal surgery when ischemic colitis was identified, and this did not have a significant effect on the mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

 Urgent bedside colonoscopy is feasible and safe for routine use. The highest advantage was observed in patients with red blood hemorrhage, diarrhea, and colon distension when symptoms were not associated with multiorgane failure, heart transplantation, or septic shock. As revealed by colonoscopy and pathological features, ischemic colitis is associated with a bad prognosis, and patients experience a higher rate of early mortality regardless of whether they undergo urgent colon surgery.

Urgent colonoscopy in patients with lower GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.

Role of early endoscopic evaluation in decreasing morbidity, mortality, and cost after caustic ingestion: a retrospective nationwide database analysis

Caustic substance ingestion (CSI) is a serious medical problem with potentially devastating short- and long-term consequences. Early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EaEn) is recommended to evaluate the extent of injury and guide management but there has been controversy about the timing. There is no nationwide study evaluating adherence to EaEn and outcomes following CSI.Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 2003-2011 was used to identify all-age, nonreferral, urgent/emergent admissions with E-International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision codes for CSI. We evaluated the association of undergoing late endoscopy (LaEn, >48 hours since admission) with poor clinical (death or systemic complications) and economic (cost for admission and length of stay above the 75th percentile) outcomes after controlling for other demographic and clinical factors using a multivariate analysis.We identified 21,682 patients with a median age of 37 years, 51% males, 43% Caucasians, with suicidal ingestion reported in 40%. Endoscopy was performed in 6011 patients (37%). The majority had EaEn (43% within 24, and 40% within 24-48 hours), whereas 17% had LaEn.Compared to EaEn group, the LaEn group was associated with a three-fold increase (OR = 2.7, P < 0.001) in the risk for poor clinical outcome: a fourfold increase (OR = 4.6, P < 0.001) in high cost admissions, and a fivefold increase (OR = 4.9, P < 0.001) in prolonged hospitalization. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes based on endoscopy within 24, and 24-48 hours of admission.In this retrospective nationwide database analysis, undergoing LaEn was associated with both negative clinical and economic outcomes. More studies are needed to further examine the reasons for delaying endoscopy and subsequent management pathways based on the endoscopic findings. Early endoscopic evaluation could potentially improve the clinical outcomes and reduce costs of these admissions.

Early Sigmoidoscopy or Colonoscopy Is Associated With Improved Hospital Outcomes in Ulcerative Colitis-Related Hospitalization

OBJECTIVES:

Performing a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy is recommended for assessment of disease activity, excluding infection, and guiding medical treatment during ulcerative colitis (UC)-related hospitalizations. However, it is unknown whether the timing of endoscopy impacts clinical outcomes. The objective of our study was to determine the impact of timing of endoscopy on hospital outcomes in patients with UC-related hospitalizations.

METHODS:

This is a cross-sectional study using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2006–2013). Adult inpatients (≥19 years) with UC-related hospitalizations were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision, Clinical modification codes (ICD-9-CM). Hospital outcomes stratified by disease severity were compared between patients receiving early (<3 days after admission) and delayed endoscopies (between 3 and 7 days after admission). The primary clinical outcomes included mortality, frequency of large intestine surgery, length of stay (LOS), and hospital cost. Results were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS:

Of a total of 84,359 patients with UC-related hospitalizations, 67.2% (56,657) underwent an early endoscopy and 32.8% (27,702) underwent a delayed endoscopy. Delayed endoscopy was associated with higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 2.88)), prolonged LOS (adjusted coefficient: 2.69 (95% CI: 2.61, 2.77)), and higher hospital cost (adjusted coefficient: $3,394 (95% CI: 3,234, 3,554)). In UC patients with intermediate disease severity, delayed endoscopy was associated with an increased frequency of large intestine surgery (adjusted odds ratio: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.53)).

CONCLUSIONS:

In UC-related hospitalizations, the timing of endoscopic procedures impacts outcomes. Early endoscopy is associated with decreased mortality and better health-care utilization (LOS and hospital cost) compared with delayed endoscopy. In UC patients with intermediate disease severity, early endoscopy is also associated with a decreased frequency of large intestine surgery.

Does Urgent Colonoscopy Improve Outcomes in the Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

Colonoscopy continues to be an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Studies that have evaluated the role of urgent colonoscopy for treating LGIB have reached conflicting conclusions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of urgent colonoscopy in several outcomes in patients with LGIB. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception to July 10, 2016 for comparative studies evaluating the role of urgent versus elective colonoscopy in the management of LGIB. We evaluated mortality, rate of rebleeding, length of stay in hospital, identification of bleeding source, stigmata of recent hemorrhage and need for surgery. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables whereas standard mean differences were calculated for continuous variables. We assessed quality using the Cochrane tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. We used the GRADE framework to interpret our findings. A total of 6 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies) with 23,419 patients (9,498 urgent colonoscopy and 13,921 elective colonoscopy) were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled ORs with 95% CI for mortality, rebleeding and identification of bleeding source were 0.84 (0.46-1.53), 1.18 (0.64-2.16) and 1.49 (0.86-2.59), respectively. Stigmata of recent hemorrhage were more readily identified with urgent colonoscopy OR 2.85 (1.90-4.28). There were no differences in requirement for surgery, length of hospital stay or rate of endoscopic intervention. However, these effect sizes were limited by considerable heterogeneity, which was probably due to studies being conducted in different countries having different criteria for discharge and on variations in the type of endoscopic therapy for stigmata of recent hemorrhage. In conclusion, among patients with acute LGIB, there is no evidence that urgent colonoscopy reduces mortality, rebleeding or requirement for surgery or that it improves the rate of identification of the bleeding source. However, urgent colonoscopy does increase the rate of detection of stigmata of recent hemorrhage.

[Value of urgent colonoscopy in diagnosis of severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with different bowel cleanliness]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of urgent colonoscopy in the diagnosis of severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and the optimal bowel preparation before examination.

METHODS

The clinical data were collected from 188 patients undergoing wither urgent or elective colonoscopy for severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in Nanfang Hospital. Univariate analysis was used to assess the effect of the timing of colonoscopy on the diagnostic rate of hemorrhage, and a multivariate model which stratified bowel cleanliness was used to analyze the impact of bowel cleanliness on the diagnostic rate of urgent colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 188 patients, 118 underwent urgent colonoscopy and 70 underwent elective colonoscopy examinations. The diagnostic rates were comparable between the two groups (44.1% vs 41.4%, P=0.724), but urgent colonoscopy resulted in a significantly higher diagnostic rate for identifying the bleeding source (32.2% vs 18.6%, P=0.041). The proportion of the patients taking oral laxatives was significantly lower in urgent colonoscopy group (P<0.001). Oral laxatives versus enema resulted in good, moderate, and poor bowel cleanliness in 63.6% vs 13.5%, 28.6% vs 24.3%, and 7.8% vs 62.2% of the patients (P<0.001). Univariate analysis indicated that good bowel cleanliness was associated with a significantly higher diagnostic rate of colonoscopy than poor bowel cleanliness (P=0.012). Multivariate analysis showed that with good bowel cleanliness, urgent colonoscopy yielded a significantly higher diagnostic rate than elective colonoscopy (P=0.030); subgroup analyses suggested that good bowel cleanliness improved the diagnostic rate of urgent colonoscopy as compared with poor bowel cleanliness (P=0.015).

CONCLUSION

In patients with good bowel cleanliness, urgent colonoscopy yields a higher diagnostic rate than elective colonoscopy for severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Poor bowel cleanliness resulting from bowel preparation by enema significantly lowers the diagnostic performance of urgent colonoscopy. Oral laxatives are recommended over enemas for bowel preparation before urgent colonoscopy when the patients have stable hemodynamics.

Safety and Effectiveness of Early Colonoscopy in Management of Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding on the Basis of Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated the safety and effectiveness of early colonoscopy (performed within 24 hours of hospital admission) for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) vs elective colonoscopy (performed 24 hours after admission).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study by using a database of endoscopies performed at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine in Tokyo, Japan from January 2009 through December 2014. We analyzed data from 538 patients emergently hospitalized for acute LGIB. We used propensity score matching to adjust for differences between patients who underwent early colonoscopy vs elective colonoscopy. Outcomes included rates of adverse events during bowel preparation and colonoscopy procedures, stigmata of recent hemorrhage, endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion requirement, 30-day rebleeding and mortality, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

We selected 163 pairs of patients for analysis on the basis of propensity matching. We observed no significant differences between the early and elective colonoscopy groups in bowel preparation-related rates of adverse events (1.8% vs 1.2%, P = .652), colonoscopy-related rates of adverse events (none in either group), blood transfusion requirement (27.6% vs 27.6%, P = 1.000), or mortality (1.2% vs 0, P = .156). The early colonoscopy group had higher rates than the elective group for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (26.4% vs 9.2%, P < .001) and endoscopic therapy (25.8% vs 8.6%, P < .001), including clipping (17.8% vs 4.9%, P < .001), band ligation (6.1% vs 1.8%, P = .048), and rebleeding (13.5% vs 7.4%, P = .070). Patients in the early colonoscopy group stayed in the hospital for a shorter mean time (10 days) than patients in the elective colonoscopy group (13 days) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy for patients with acute LGIB is safe, allows for endoscopic therapy because it identifies the bleeding source, and reduces hospital stay. However, compared with elective colonoscopy, early colonoscopy does not reduce mortality and may increase the risk for rebleeding.

Lower GI bleeding: a review of current management, controversies and advances

PURPOSE

Lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is defined as bleeding distal to the ligament of Treitz. In the UK, it represents approximately 3 % of all surgical referrals to the hospital. This review aims to provide review of the current evidence regarding the management of this condition.

METHODS

Literature was searched using Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane for relevant evidence by two researchers. This was conducted in a manner that enabled a narrative review of the evidence covering the aetiology, clinical assessment and management options of continuously bleeding patients.

FINDINGS

The majority of patients with acute lower GI bleeding can be treated conservatively. In cases where ongoing bleeding occurs, colonoscopy is still the first line of investigation and treatment. Failure of endoscopy and persistent instability warrant angiography, possibly preceded by CT angiography and proceeding to superselective embolisation. Failure of embolisation warrants surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still many unanswered questions. In particular, the development of a more reliable predictive tool for mortality, rebleeding and requirement for surgery needs to be the ultimate priority. There are a small number of encouraging developments on combination therapy with regard to angiography, endoscopy and surgery. Additionally, the increasing use of haemostatic agents provides an additional tool for the management of bleeding endoscopically in difficult situations.