What is the ideal timing for endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Endoscopic management of acute oesophageal variceal bleeding within 12 hours of admission is superior to 12-24 hours

Background: Acute oesophageal variceal haemorrhage (AOVH) is a medical emergency. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends endoscopy management as soon as possible and not more than 12 hours after presentation. The United Kingdom guidelines recommended endoscopy for unstable patients with severe acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding immediately after resuscitation and within 24 hours of admission. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic management of AOVH in less than 12 hours compared to 12-24 hours post admission.Methods: 297 patients with AOVH were divided into groups depending on the timing of the endoscopic management: 180 within 12 h of admission and 117 patients at 12-24 hours of admission. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected.Results: Compared to patients with endoscopic management at 12-24 hours (mean 16 hours), patients with endoscopic management within 12 hours (mean 8.3 hours) of admission had fewer hospital stay days (P = 0.001), significant reduction of ammonia levels (P < 0.0001) and significant improvement in associated hepatic encephalopathy grade 25 (p = 0.048). There were no major clinical events in the 12-hour group, but 8 events in the 12-24 hour group (p < 0.01).Conclusion: Endoscopic management of acute variceal bleeding within 12 hours of admission is superior to endoscopic management at 12-24 hours of admission regarding reduction of hospital stay, ammonia levels, correction of hepatic encephalopathy, re-bleeding and mortality rate, hence, reducing the cost of treatment benefiting patient satisfaction and improving hospital bed availability.

Outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding following changes to management protocols at an Australian hospital

Background and Aim

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has a high mortality rate and requires efficient and directed acute management. This project aimed to assess patient outcomes following changes to UGIB management protocols at Northern Hospital, Victoria, Australia. Changes involved streamlining management under a single inpatient unit, earlier endoscopy, blood transfusion thresholds, and risk stratification.

Methods

This was a cohort study of 400 patients aged ≥18 years admitted to Northern Hospital who underwent endoscopy for acute UGIB. Data of preprotocol changes (Group 1) and prospectively postprotocol changes (Group 2) were collected retrospectively. Primary outcomes were inpatient mortality, rebleeding, radiologic or surgical intervention, and endoscopic reintervention. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) ≥4 days and blood units transfused. Univariate analyses were conducted comparing groups and associations between variables and outcomes, followed by multivariate analyses for each outcome.

Results

There was no difference in mortality on multivariate analysis (P = 0.95). Rebleeding reduced by 4% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.48; P = 0.03), LOS ≥4 days reduced by 15.1% (AOR 0.46; P < 0.00) and median blood units transfused decreased with adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.81 (P = 0.00). Early endoscopy (i.e. ≤12 h) for all patients increased by 15% (P < 0.00) and there were 12% more high‐risk patients (i.e. Glasgow–Blatchford score ≥ 12) in Group 2 (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Following changes to UGIB protocols at this Australian hospital, endoscopic times decreased with reductions in rebleeding, LOS ≥4 days, and blood transfusion rates. These findings demonstrate improved outcomes after the implementation of new treatment targets focusing on streamlined care of patients presenting with UGIB.

Endoscopy Timing in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background/Aims

The role of very early (≤12 hours) endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is controversial. We aimed to compare results of very early and early (12–24 hours) endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding demonstrating low-risk versus high-risk features and nonvariceal versus variceal bleeding.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients with nonvariceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death, rebleeding, or need for surgery or intensive care unit admission. Endoscopy timing was defined as very early and early. We performed the analysis in two subgroups: (1) high-risk vs. low-risk patients and (2) variceal vs. nonvariceal bleeding.

Results

A total of 102 patients were included, of whom 59.8% underwent urgent endoscopy. Patients who underwent very early endoscopy received endoscopic therapy more frequently (p=0.001), but there was no improvement in other clinical outcomes. Furthermore, patients at low risk and with nonvariceal bleeding who underwent very early endoscopy had a higher risk of the composite outcome.

Conclusions

Very early endoscopy does not seem to be associated with improved clinical outcomes and may lead to poorer outcomes in specific populations with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The actual benefit of very early endoscopy remains controversial and should be further clarified.