Pre-Endoscopic Rockall and Blatchford Scores to Identify Which Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Gastrointestinal Bleed Do Not Need Endoscopic Hemostasis

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Comparison of computed tomography findings with clinical risks factors for endoscopic therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases

Several risk scoring systems exist for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The clinical Rockall score (clinical RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are major risk scores that consider only clinical data. Computed tomography (CT) findings are equivocal in non-variceal UGIB. We compared CT findings with clinical data to predict mortality, rebleeding and need for endoscopic therapy in non-variceal UGIB patients. This retrospective, single-center study included 386 patients admitted to our emergency department with diagnosis of non-variceal UGIB by urgent endoscopy between January 2009 and March 2015. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate CT findings and risk factors derived from clinical data. CT findings could not significantly predict mortality and rebleeding in non-variceal UGIB patients. However, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in CT findings better predicted the need for endoscopic therapy than clinical data. The adjusted odds ratios were 10.10 (95% CI 5.01-20.40) for clinical RS and 10.70 (95% CI 5.08-22.70) for the GBS. UGI hemorrhage in CT findings could predict the need for endoscopic therapy in non-variceal UGIB patients in our emergency department. CT findings as well as risk score systems may be useful for predicting the need for endoscopic therapy.

Development, Validation, and Comparative Assessment of an International Scoring System to Determine Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (pRS) are used in determining prognoses of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but neither predicts outcomes of patients with a high level of accuracy. A scoring system is needed to identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes and patients at low risk of harm.

METHODS

We pooled data from 5 data sets in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia on 12,711 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The GBS and pRS were calculated for each patient. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling of data from 10,639 cases to develop the new scoring system Canada - United Kingdom - Adelaide (CANUKA). We performed area under the receiver operating characteristic analyses to test the ability of CANUKA to identify patients who died or had rebleeding within 30 days, surgical or radiologic intervention to control bleeding, need for therapeutic endoscopy, and transfusion-a poor outcome was defined as 1 or more of these outcomes. Patients at low risk of a poor outcome (safe for management as an outpatient) were identified based on lack of transfusion, rebleeding, therapeutic endoscopy, interventional radiology or surgery, or death. We validated in 2072 patients from a separate cohort compiled from 2 datasets.

RESULTS

In the development data set there was no difference between GBS and pRS in identifying patients who died without 30 days of bleeding (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.62-0.72 for GBS; AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74 for pRS; P = .21). The GBS was superior to the pRS in identifying patients with rebleeding, hemostatic interventions, and transfusions. In the validation data set, CANUKA had higher accuracy than the GBS in identifying patients who died within 30 days of bleeding (AUROC, 0.77 vs 0.74; P = .047), but there was no significant difference in the accuracy of these scoring systems in identifying patients who required hemostatic intervention. The GBS more accurately identified patients who required therapeutic endoscopy (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81 for GBS; AUROC, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79 for CANUKA; P = .47). For patients classified as low-risk patients by CANUKA (score ≤1), 96.3% were safely discharged, whereas 16 patients with a GBS ≤1 had an adverse outcome (a 95.3% probability of safe discharge).

CONCLUSIONS

In an international validation analysis of the GBS and pRS for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we found the GBS to more accurately identify those who later required hemostatic interventions and transfusions; the scoring systems identified 30-day mortality or rebleeding with equal levels of accuracy. We developed a scoring system (CANUKA) that had similar performance to the GBS in predicting patient outcomes and it more accurately identifies patients at low risk for adverse outcomes.

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.

Validation of a Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score for Risk Stratification of Patients with Suspected Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Accident and Emergency Department in Hong Kong

Objectives

To validate the use of a modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score (mGBS) for risk stratification of patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in an accident and emergency department in Hong Kong.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who attended the emergency department of the study centre from January 2014 to June 2014 who were subsequently admitted to surgical wards with suspected UGIB. High risk patients were considered to be those who required in-patient clinical interventions (blood transfusion, therapeutic endoscopy, angiographic embolisation, or surgery). The mGBS was calculated for each patient. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the score were calculated.

Results

A total of 372 patients were included in the study. With an mGBS of 0 (low risk) for detecting the primary outcome, the sensitivity was 99.2% (95% CI, 95.6100%), and the specificity was 25.91 (95% CI 20.6-31.8%). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.031 (95% CI 0.004-0.2). The AUC was 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93).

Conclusion

The modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score is a clinically useful tool for emergency physician to identify UGIB patients at low-risk of requiring in-hospital clinical interventions. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2016;23:3-11)

Care of Acute Gastrointestinal Conditions in the Observation Unit

The Emergency Department Observation Unit (EDOU) provides a viable alternative to inpatient admission for the management of many acute gastrointestinal conditions with additional opportunities of reducing resource utilization and reducing radiation exposure. Using available evidence-based criteria to determine appropriate patient selection, evaluation, and treatment provides higher-quality medical care and improved patient satisfaction. Discussions of factors involved in creating an EDOU capable of caring for acute gastrointestinal conditions and clinical protocol examples of acute appendicitis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and acute pancreatitis provide a framework from which a successful EDOU can be built.

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performances of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS) and AIMS65 in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).

METHODS

This study enrolled 320 consecutive patients with AUGIB. Patients at high and low risks of developing adverse clinical outcomes (rebleeding, the need of clinical intervention and death) were categorized according to the GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scoring systems. The outcome of the patients were the occurrences of adverse clinical outcomes. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of three scoring systems were compared.

RESULTS

Irrespective of the systems used, the high-risk groups showed higher rates of rebleeding, intervention and death compared with the low-risk groups (P < 0.05). For the prediction of rebleeding, AIMS65 (AUROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.667-0.802) performed significantly better than GBS (AUROC 0.672, 95% CI 0.597-0.747; P < 0.01) and mGBS (AUROC 0.677, 95% CI 0.602-0.753; P < 0.01). For the prediction of interventions, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.769, 95% CI 0.668-0.870; mGBS: AUROC 0.745, 95% CI 0.643-0.847; AIMS65: AUROC 0.746, 95% CI 0.640-0.851). For the prediction of in-hospital mortality, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.796, 95% CI 0.694-0.898; mGBS: AUROC 0.803, 95% CI 0.703-0.904; AIMS65: AUROC 0.786, 95% CI 0.670-0.903).

CONCLUSIONS

The three scoring systems are reliable and accurate in predicting the rates of rebleeding, surgery and mortality in AUGIB. However, AIMS65 outperforms GBS and mGBS in predicting rebleeding.

The Predictive Value of Preendoscopic Risk Scores to Predict Adverse Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) using preendoscopic risk scores can aid ED physicians in disposition decision-making. We conducted a systematic review to assess the predictive value of preendoscopic risk scores for 30-day serious adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to March 2015. We included studies involving adult ED UGIB patients evaluating preendoscopic risk scores and excluded reviews, case reports, and animal studies. The composite outcome included 30-day mortality, recurrent bleeding, and need for intervention. In two phases (screening and full review), two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted patient-level data. The consensus data were used for analysis. We reported sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We identified 3,173 articles, of which 16 were included: three studied Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS); one studied clinical Rockall score (cRockall); two studied AIMS65; six compared GBS and cRockall; three compared GBS, a modification of the GBS, and cRockall; and one compared the GBS and AIMS65. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of the GBS were 0.98 and 0.16, respectively; for the cRockall they were 0.93 and 0.24, respectively; and for the AIMS65 they were 0.79 and 0.61, respectively. The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 had a sensitivity of 0.99 and a specificity of 0.08.

CONCLUSION

The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 was superior over other cutoff points and risk scores for identifying low-risk patients but had a very low specificity. None of the risk scores identified by our systematic review were robust and, hence, cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Future prospective studies are needed to develop robust new scores for use in ED patients with UGIB.

Validity of modified early warning, Glasgow Blatchford, and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores in predicting prognosis of patients presenting to emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

GBS, MEWS, and PER scoring systems are not commonly used for patients presenting to emergency department with GIS bleeding. This study aimed to determine the value of MEWS, GBS, and PER scores in predicting bleeding at follow-up, endoscopic therapy and blood transfusion need, mortality, and rebleeding within a 1-month period.

Methods

A total of 202 consecutive patients with upper GIS bleeding between July 2013 and November 2014 were prospectively enrolled in the study. The relationship between MEWS, GBS, and PER scores and hospital outcome, bleeding at follow-up, endoscopic therapy, transfusion need, rebleeding, and death were examined.

Results

The study included a total of 202 subjects, with 84 (41.6 %) females and 118 (58.4 %) males. There was a significant correlation between GBS, MEWS, and PER scores and hospital outcomes (p <0.004, p <0.001, p <0.001, respectively). A GBS score greater than 11 succesfully predicted bleeding at follow-up (p = 0.0237). GBS score's sensitivity for predicting endoscopic therapy was greater than those of other scoring systems. The discriminatory power of each scoring system was significant for predicting transfusion (p <0.0001, p = 0.0470, and p = 0.0014, respectively). A GBS score greater than 13, a MEWS score greater than 2, and a PER score greater than 3 predicted death. A PER score greater than 3 predicted rebleeding (p <0.0001).

Conclusion

The scoring systems in question can be easily calculated in patients presenting to ED with upper GIS bleeding and may be beneficial for risk stratification, determination of transfusion need, prediction of rebleeding, and decisions of hospitalization or discharge.

Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality

OBJECTIVE

AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aims were to revalidate AIMS65 as predictor of inpatient mortality and to compare AIMS65's performance with that of Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) with regard to mortality, and the secondary outcomes of a composite endpoint of severity, transfusion requirements, rebleeding, delayed (6-month) mortality, and length of stay.

METHODS

The study included 309 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic, surgical, or radiological treatments, and outcomes for 6 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, delayed mortality, rebleeding, composite endpoint, blood transfusions, and length of stay.

RESULTS

In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65, GBS, and RS were similar when predicting inpatient mortality (0.76 vs. 0.78 vs. 0.78). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AIMS65 and GBS were identical (0.62 vs. 0.62). AIMS65 was useless when predicting rebleeding compared to GBS or RS (0.56 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.71). GBS was better at predicting the need for transfusions. No patient with AIMS65 = 0, GBS ≤ 6, or RS ≤ 4 died. Considering the composite endpoint, an AIMS65 of 0 did not exclude high risk patients, but a GBS ≤ 1 or RS ≤ 2 did. The three scores were similar in predicting prolonged in-hospital stay. Delayed mortality was better predicted by AIMS65.

CONCLUSION

AIMS65 is comparable to GBS and RS in essential endpoints such as inpatient mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and length of stay. GBS is a better score predicting rebleeding and the need for transfusion, but AIMS65 shows a better performance predicting delayed mortality.

A Novel Easy-to-Use Prediction Scheme for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) Risk Score

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the leading indication for emergency endoscopy. Scoring schemes have been developed for immediate risk stratification. However, most of these scores include endoscopic findings and are based on data from patients with nonvariceal bleeding. The aim of our study was to design a pre-endoscopic score for acute UGIB--including variceal bleeding--in order to identify high-risk patients requiring urgent clinical management. The scoring system was developed using a data set consisting of 586 patients with acute UGIB. These patients were identified from the emergency department as well as all inpatient services at the University Hospital of Cologne within a 2-year period (01/2007-12/2008). Further data from a cohort of 322 patients who presented to our endoscopy unit with acute UGIB in 2009 served for external/temporal validation.Clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic parameters, as well as further data on medical history and medication were retrospectively collected from the electronic clinical documentation system. A multivariable logistic regression was fitted to the development set to obtain a risk score using recurrent bleeding, need for intervention (angiography, surgery), or death within 30 days as a composite endpoint. Finally, the obtained risk score was evaluated on the validation set. Only C-reactive protein, white blood cells, alanine-aminotransferase, thrombocytes, creatinine, and hemoglobin were identified as significant predictors for the composite endpoint. Based on the regression coefficients of these variables, an easy-to-use point scoring scheme (C-WATCH) was derived to estimate the risk of complications from 3% to 86% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.723 in the development set and 0.704 in the validation set. In the validation set, no patient in the identified low-risk group (0-1 points), but 38.7% of patients in the high-risk group (≥ 2 points) reached the composite endpoint. Our easy-to-use scoring scheme is able to distinguish high-risk patients requiring urgent endoscopy, from low-risk cases who are suitable candidates for outpatient management or in whom endoscopy may be postponed. Based on our findings, a prospective validation of the C-WATCH score in different patient populations outside the university hospital setting seems warranted.

Prospective multicenter validation of the Glasgow Blatchford bleeding score in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage presenting at an emergency department

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) has been developed to assess the need for treatment in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) presenting at emergency departments (EDs). We aimed (a) to determine the validity of the GBS and Rockall scoring systems for prediction of need for treatment and (b) to identify the optimal cut-off value of the GBS.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based, prospective multicenter study of 520 consecutive patients presenting with acute UGIH at EDs of three hospitals. The accuracy of GBS and Rockall scores in predicting the need for treatment (i.e. endoscopic, surgical, or radiological intervention and blood transfusion) was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the GBS had a good discriminative ability to determine the need for treatment in patients with acute UGIH (area under the curve: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.91). The GBS was superior to both the clinical Rockall and the full Rockall score in predicting the need for treatment (area under the curve: 0.86 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.77). At a cut-off value of up to 2, the GBS had the optimal combination of sensitivity (99.4%) and specificity (42.4%).

CONCLUSION

The GBS is superior compared with both Rockall scores in predicting the need for treatment in patients with suspected acute UGIH presenting at EDs in the Netherlands. Patients with a GBS of 2 or less form a subgroup of low-risk patients. These low-risk patients are eligible for outpatient management, which might reduce hospital admissions and healthcare costs.

Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford and the AIMS65 scoring systems as early risk assessment tools for accurately identifying patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding who are at a low risk of requiring clinical interventions, including emergency endoscopy. The secondary objective was to compare their performance regarding relevant clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively over a 2-year period in the emergency department of a university hospital. Adult patients with upper GI bleeding from either variceal or nonvariceal sources were included. Composite clinical outcomes consisted of a need for surgical or endoscopic intervention, rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, or in-hospital mortality. Patients who required blood transfusions or suffered composite clinical outcomes were considered high-risk patients. Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and AIMS65 score were calculated for each patient. The sensitivity and specificity of the scoring systems were calculated. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the scores were compared.

RESULTS

There were 254 patients in the study, of whom 163 (64.2%) were men. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range = 45 to 72 years). Among the patients, 211 (83.1%) underwent endoscopy, of whom 49 (19.3%) required endoscopic intervention to achieve hemostasis. Five (2%) patients required surgical intervention. Rebleeding was observed in 33 (13%) patients. A total of 143 (56.3%) patients received blood transfusions. A total of 152 (59.8%) were defined as high risk. Eighty-one (31.9%) experienced at least one component of the composite clinical outcomes, 18 (7.1%) of whom suffered in-hospital mortality. A GBS of 0 was observed in 16 patients (6.3%) in the study group. Two of these were high-risk patients. A total of 101 (39.8%) patients had AIMS65 scores of 0. Thirty-four of these were high-risk patients. A GBS of 0 had higher sensitivity than an AIMS65 score of 0 (98.68% vs. 77.6%). The negative predictive values of the GBS and AIMS65 of 0 were 87.5 and 66.3%, respectively. The GBS and AIMS65 were similar with regard to the composite outcome prediction, with AUCs of 0.795 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.843) and 0.746 (95% CI = 0.688 to 0.798), respectively (p = 0.137). The scores were also similar with respect to predicting in-hospital mortality (AUCs of 0.85 vs. 0.81; p = 0.342). The GBS was superior to the AIMS65 in identifying high-risk patients, with AUCs of 0.896 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.93) and 0.771 (95% CI = 0.714 to 0.821; p < 0.001), respectively. The GBS was also more accurate than the AIM65 in predicting the need for blood transfusions (AUCs of 0.904 vs. 0.796; p < 0.001) and interventions (AUCs of 0.727 vs. 0.647; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the GBS has superior sensitivity relative to the AIMS65 in identifying patients who were not likely to require interventions, including emergency endoscopy. Additional work to determine the use in real-time decision making may be warranted and helpful in providing guidance to clinicians.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: patient presentation, risk stratification, and early management

The established quality indicators for early management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage are based on rapid diagnosis, risk stratification, and early management. Effective preendoscopic treatment may improve survivability of critically ill patients and improve resource allocation for all patients. Accurate risk stratification helps determine the need for hospital admission, hemodynamic monitoring, blood transfusion, and endoscopic hemostasis before esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) via indirect measures such as laboratory studies, physiologic data, and comorbidities. Early management before the definitive EGD is essential to improving outcomes for patients with upper GI bleeding.

Emergency physicians accurately interpret video capsule endoscopy findings in suspected upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a video survey

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage is a common emergency department (ED) presentation whose severity ranges from benign to life-threatening and the best tool to risk stratify the disease is an upper endoscopy, either by scope or by capsule, a procedure performed almost exclusively by gastroenterologists. Unfortunately, on-call gastroenterology specialists are often unavailable, and emergency physicians (EPs) currently lack an alternative method to endoscopically visualize a suspected acute upper GI hemorrhage. Recent reports have shown that video capsule endoscopy is well tolerated by ED patients and has similar sensitivity and specificity to endoscopy for upper GI hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to determine if EPs can detect upper GI bleeding on capsule endoscopy after a brief training session.

METHODS

A survey study was designed to demonstrate video examples of capsule endoscopy to EPs and determine if they could detect upper GI bleeding after a brief training session. All videos were generated from a prior ED-based study on patients with suspected acute upper GI hemorrhage. The training session consisted of less than 10 minutes of background information and capsule endoscopy video examples. EPs were recruited at the American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly in Denver, Colorado, from October 8, 2012, to October 10, 2012. Inclusion criteria included being an ED resident or attending physician and the exclusion criteria included any formal endoscopy training. The authors analyzed the agreement between the EPs and expert adjudicated capsule endoscopy readings for each capsule endoscopy video. For the outcome categories of blood (fresh or coffee grounds type) or no blood detected, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 126 EPs were enrolled. Compared to expert gastroenterology-adjudicated interpretation, the sensitivity to detect blood was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 0.96) and specificity was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.80 to 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

After brief training, EPs can accurately interpret video capsule endoscopy findings of presence of gross blood or no blood with high sensitivity and specificity.