Is early endoscopy in the emergency room beneficial in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer? A "fortuitously controlled" study

Risk factors and outcomes of peptic ulcer bleed in a Pakistani population: A single-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains a significant healthcare burden, contributing to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite advancements in therapies, its prevalence persists, particularly in regions with widespread nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use and Helicobacter pylori infection.

AIM

To comprehensively analyse the risk factors and outcomes of PUD-related upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in Pakistani population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 142 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who underwent upper GI endoscopy from January to December 2022. Data on demographics, symptoms, length of stay, mortality, re-bleed, and Forrest classification was collected.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 53 years, and the majority was men (68.3%). Hematemesis (82.4%) and epigastric pain (75.4%) were the most common presenting symptoms. Most patients (73.2%) were discharged within five days. The mortality rates at one week and one month were 10.6% and 14.8%, respectively. Re-bleed within 24 h and seven days occurred in 14.1% and 18.3% of patients, respectively. Most ulcers were Forrest class (FC) III (72.5%). Antiplatelet use was associated with higher mortality at 7 and 30 d, while alternative medications were linked to higher 24-hour re-bleed rates. NSAID use was associated with more FC III ulcers. Re-bleed at 24 h and 7 d was strongly associated with one-week or one-month mortality.

CONCLUSION

Antiplatelet use and rebleeding increase the risk of early mortality in PUD-related upper GI bleeding, while alternative medicines are associated with early rebleeding.

Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008).

CONCLUSION

Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy).

Comparison of urgent and early endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

Data regarding early (within 24h) and urgent endoscopy (within 12h) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB) revealed conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the impact of endoscopy timing on the outcomes of high-risk patients with NV-UGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2020 to February 2021, consecutive high-risk (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥12) adults admitted to the emergency department with NV-UGIB were analyzed retrospectively. The primary composite outcome was 30-day mortality from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for endoscopic re-intervention, need for surgery or angiographic embolization.

RESULTS

240 patients were enrolled: 152 (63%) patients underwent urgent endoscopy (<12h) and 88 (37%) patients underwent early endoscopy (12-24h). One or more components of the composite outcome were observed in 53 (22.1%) patients: 30 (12.5%) had 30-day mortality, rebleeding occurred in 27 (11.3%), 7 (2.9%) underwent endoscopic re-intervention, and 5 (2.1%) required surgery or angiographic embolization. The composite outcome was similar between the groups. Multivariate analysis showed only hemodynamic instability on admission (OR: 3.05, p=0.006), and the previous history of cancer (OR: 2.42, p=0.029) were significant in predicting composite outcome. In terms of secondary outcomes, the endoscopic intervention was higher in the urgent endoscopy group (p=0.006), whereas the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions and the length of hospital stay was higher in the early endoscopy group (p=0.002 and p=0.040, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy leads to a significant reduction in the length of hospitalization and the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions in NV-UGIB, which can contribute to patient satisfaction, reduce healthcare expenditure, and improve hospital bed availability. The composite outcome and its sub-outcomes were the same among both groups.

The influences of timing of urgent endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

There has always been a debate on the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the relation between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of patients with AVB.

METHODS

Patients with AVB who underwent endoscopy within 24 h after admission at our tertiary care center from 2014 to 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. The primary outcomes were the 6-week mortality and re-bleeding. The secondary outcomes included the total number of blood units transfused, the length of hospital stay, and the need for salvage therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the predictors of 6-week mortality in all patients as well as in those who were at high risk of further bleeding or death.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients were enrolled. Among them, 170 patients (54.49%) underwent urgent endoscopy (< 6 h), and 142 patients (45.51%) underwent early endoscopy (6-24 h). There were no significant differences between the urgent-endoscopy group and the early-endoscopy group, regarding the 6-week mortality (16.47% vs. 10.56%; P value = 0.132) and 6-week re-bleeding rate (11.2% vs. 16.2%; P value = 0.196). In multivariate analysis, time to endoscopy was independent of 6-week mortality (P value = 0.170), but the time between the beginning of bleeding and endoscopy (within 12 h) was significantly associated with low 6-week mortality (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06-0.46; P value = 0.001). Time to endoscopy was still not associated with 6-week mortality in patients at high risk for further bleeding or death (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥ 12, n = 138, P value = 0.902).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy performed within 6 h of admission, rather than within 6 to 24 h, did not improve six-week clinical outcomes in patients in stable condition with AVB and even those who were at high risk of further bleeding and death.

Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a territory-wide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

While it is recommended that patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) should receive endoscopic intervention within 24 hours, the optimal timing is still uncertain. We aimed to assess whether endoscopy timing postadmission would affect outcomes.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective, territory-wide, cohort study with healthcare data from all public hospitals in Hong Kong. Adult patients (age ≥18) that presented with AUGIB between 2013 and 2019 and received therapeutic endoscopy within 48 hours (n=6474) were recruited. Patients were classified based on endoscopic timing postadmission: urgent (t≤6), early (6<t≤24) and late (24<t≤48). Baseline characteristics were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting. 30-day all-cause mortality, repeated therapeutic endoscopy rate, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate and other endpoints were compared.

RESULTS

Results showed that urgent timing (n=1008) had worse outcomes compared with early endoscopy (n=3865), with higher 30-day all-cause mortality (p<0.001), repeat endoscopy rates (p<0.001) and ICU admission rates (p<0.001). Late endoscopy (n=1601) was associated with worse outcomes, with higher 30-day mortality (p=0.003), in-hospital mortality (p=0.022) and 30-day transfusion rates (p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Compared with urgent and late endoscopy among patients who have received therapeutic endoscopies, early endoscopy was associated with superior outcomes especially among patients with non-variceal bleeding. This supports the notion that non-variceal AUGIB patients should receive endoscopy within 24 hours, but also emphasises the importance of prior resuscitation and pharmacotherapy.

Pros and Cons of Performing Early Endoscopy in Geriatric Patients Admitted with Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Analysis of the US National Inpatient Database

BACKGROUND

Age greater than 65 years is a well-defined risk factor for increased mortality in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB). Endoscopy is indicated in most patients at any age but presents unique risks in the elderly cohort, and ideal timing is unclear. This study examined the association between outcomes and early (within 24 h) esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) among elderly patients with NVGIB.

METHODS

All patients over age 65 admitted primarily for NVGIB who underwent EGD were included from the National Inpatient Sample 2016-2017. Clinical outcomes stratified by early EGD versus late EGD were compared after adjustment for comorbidities and bleeding severity using inverse probability of treatment weighting with survey-adjusted linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of estimated 625,530 admissions with a primary diagnosis of NVGIB, 120,835 met eligibility criteria; 24,830 underwent early EGD. Mean length of stay and total charges decreased by 1.17 days (95%CI 1.04-1.30, P < 0.001) and $5717.24 (95%CI 4034.57-7399.91, P < 0.001), respectively, in the early EGD group. Early EGD increased the odds ratio of death 1.32 (95%CI 1.06-1.64, P 0.01) and transfer to other hospitals 1.48 (95%CI 1.22-1.81, P < 0.001). No change was seen in the requirement for surgery or angiography. Rates of discharge to a nursing facility or home health were similar.

CONCLUSION

In a comprehensive cohort of geriatric patients with NVGIB, early EGD is associated with decreased hospital stay and charges, but also with increased mortality and inter-hospital transfer. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of this vulnerable population.

Urgent Endoscopy Improves Hemostasis in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Biliary-pancreatic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a lethal complication of biliary-pancreatic surgery (BPS). The role of endoscopic intervention has not been fully defined in such a critical condition. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with acute UGIB after BPS who received interventional endoscopy between January 2007 and August 2020 were included in this study. The clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed to screen for predictive factors significantly associated with successful hemostasis.

RESULTS

Among 37,772 patients who underwent BPS, 26 patients (0.069%) developed acute UGIB. The sites and causes of hemorrhage were as follows: gastroenteric anastomoe (n=17), gastric stump (n=2), jejunal anastomose (n=1), duodenal bulb ulcer (n=2), pancreatojejunal anastomosis hemorrhage (n=1), cholangiojejunal anastomose (n=1), gastroenteric anastomose and gastric stump hemorrhage (n=1), and Dieulafoy lesion (n=1). Successful endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in 19 (73.1%) of the 26 UGIB patients. In the 7 patients who failed endotherapy, 1 patient received a successful radiologic intervention, 6 patients underwent reoperation and achieved hemostasis in 4, and the other 2 patients died after reoperation. Logistic regression analysis showed that presentation-to-endoscopy time (≤12 h) was the only independent predictive factor associated with successful endoscopic hemostasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis is relatively safe and effective in controlling UIGB after BPS. Prompt intervention (≤12 h) could improve the success rate of endoscopic hemostasis.

Does timing of endoscopy affect outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains controversial. Early EGD (E-EGD) (within 24 h of presentation) has been compared to late EGD (L-EGD) (after 24 h) in numerous studies with conflicting results. The previous systematic review included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the cutoff time for performing EGD was arbitrary. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing the outcomes of E-EGD and L-EGD group.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was undertaken to include both RCTs and cohort studies. Primary outcomes including overall mortality and secondary outcomes (recurrent bleeding, need for transfusion, and length of stay) were compared. Risk ratios and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 13 observational studies (with over 1.8 million patients) were included in the final analysis. No significant difference in overall mortality (risk ratio: 0.97; CI, 0.74-1.27), recurrent bleeding (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.62-2.00), and length of stay (SMD: -0.07, CI, -0.31 to 0.18) was observed for E-EGD group compared to L-EGD group. The possibility of endoscopic intervention was higher in E-EGD group (risk ratio: 1.70, CI, 1.28-2.27). Consistent results were obtained for subgroup analysis of studies with 100% nonvariceal bleed (NVB) patient (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.84-1.50).

CONCLUSION

Given the outcomes and limitations, our meta-analysis did not demonstrate clear benefit of performing EGD within 24 h of presentation for UGIB (particularly NVB).

Timing of Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. The role of endoscopy performed within time frames shorter than 24 hours has not been adequately defined.

METHODS

To evaluate whether urgent endoscopy improves outcomes in patients predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death, we randomly assigned patients with overt signs of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow-Blatchford score of 12 or higher (scores range from 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of further bleeding or death) to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours (urgent-endoscopy group) or between 6 and 24 hours (early-endoscopy group) after gastroenterologic consultation. The primary end point was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 516 patients were enrolled. The 30-day mortality was 8.9% (23 of 258 patients) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 6.6% (17 of 258) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 6.9). Further bleeding within 30 days occurred in 28 patients (10.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 20 (7.8%) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.1). Ulcers with active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) with peptic ulcers in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the early-endoscopy group. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment was administered at initial endoscopy for 155 patients (60.1%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and for 125 (48.4%) in the early-endoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were at high risk for further bleeding or death, endoscopy performed within 6 hours after gastroenterologic consultation was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than endoscopy performed between 6 and 24 hours after consultation. (Funded by the Health and Medical Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01675856.).

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB. Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review. A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the gold standard for evaluating and treating acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The optimal timing of endoscopy is a very important consideration in the overall management of UGIB, but there is on going uncertainty regarding timing of the procedure, particularly in those with more severe bleeding. This is reflected by inconsistencies between current guidelines. Although evidence suggests endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 h for all admitted patients with UGIB, a small group of patients with severe bleeding or high-risk features may require more urgent endoscopy. The exact timing of the procedure in this high-risk group remains unclear, with recent data suggesting that performing endoscopy too early may be associated with worse outcome. In this article we examine the evidence for optimal timing of endoscopy in patients presenting with UGIB and suggest a clinical approach to this important aspect of patient management.

Predictors for the need for endoscopic therapy in patients with presumed acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Selecting patients with an urgent need for endoscopic hemostasis is difficult based only on simple parameters of presumed acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This study assessed easily applicable factors to predict cases in need of urgent endoscopic hemostasis due to acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

The consecutively included patients were divided into the endoscopic hemostasis and nonendoscopic hemostasis groups. We reviewed the enrolled patients' medical records and analyzed various variables and parameters for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding outcomes such as demographic factors, comorbidities, symptoms, signs, laboratory findings, rebleeding rate, and mortality to evaluate simple predictive factors for endoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 613 patients were analyzed, including 329 patients in the endoscopic hemostasis and 284 patients in the non-endoscopic hemostasis groups. In the multivariate analysis, a bloody nasogastric lavage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.990 to 11.543; p < 0.0001) and a hemoglobin level less than 8.6 g/dL (AOR, 1.768; 95% CI, 1.028 to 3.039; p = 0.039) were independent predictors for endoscopic hemostasis. Significant differences in the morbidity rates of endoscopic hemostasis were detected between the group with no predictive factors and the group with one or more predictive factors (OR, 2.677; 95% CI, 1.920 to 3.733; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

A bloody nasogastric lavage and hemoglobin < 8.6 g/dL were independent predictors of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2018?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in the UK. Despite advancement in technology the management of AUGIB remains a challenge. The clinical community recognise the need for improvement in the treatment of these patients. AUGIB has a significant impact on resources. Endoscopic therapy is the gold standard treatment. The mortality in AUGIB is rarely related to the presenting bleed but significantly associated with concurrent comorbidities. The cost of blood transfusion in the management of patients with AUGIB is significant and misuse of blood products has been documented nationally. Risk stratification tools such as Glasgow-Blatchford Score, Rockall Score and the AIMS65 score have allowed clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to deliver endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame. Endoscopic therapeutic modalities such as epinephrine injection, heat thermocoagulation and mechanical clips have had a positive impact on patient's management. However, in order to continue to improve patient's outcomes, further developments are needed.

Timing of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy does not influence short-term outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

AIM

To examine the association between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 274 consecutive patients admitted with acute esophageal variceal bleeding of two tertiary hospitals in Korea. We adjusted confounding factors using the Cox proportional hazards model and the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method. The primary outcome was the mortality of patients within 6 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients received urgent endoscopy (i.e., ≤ 12 h after admission), and 101 patients received non-urgent endoscopy (> 12 h after admission). The 6-wk mortality rate was 22.5% in the urgent endoscopy group and 29.7% in the non-urgent endoscopy group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups before (P = 0.266) and after IPW (P = 0.639). The length of hospital stay was statistically different between the urgent group and non-urgent group (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups (8.1% vs 7.9%, P = 0.960). In multivariate analyses, timing of endoscopy was not associated with 6-wk mortality (hazard ratio, 1.297; 95% confidence interval, 0.806-2.089; P = 0.284).

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding, the timing of endoscopy may be independent of short-term mortality.

Time to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Results from a prospective multicentre trainee-led audit

Background

Endoscopy within 24 h of admission (early endoscopy) is a quality standard in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). We aimed to audit time to endoscopy outcomes and identify factors affecting delayed endoscopy (>24 h of admission).

Methods

This prospective multicentre audit enrolled patients admitted with AUGIB who underwent inpatient endoscopy between November and December 2017. Analyses were performed to identify factors associated with delayed endoscopy, and to compare patient outcomes, including length of stay and mortality rates, between early and delayed endoscopy groups.

Results

Across 348 patients from 20 centres, the median time to endoscopy was 21.2 h (IQR 12.0-35.7), comprising median admission to referral and referral to endoscopy times of 8.1 h (IQR 3.7-18.1) and 6.7 h (IQR 3.0-23.1), respectively. Early endoscopy was achieved in 58.9%, although this varied by centre (range: 31.0-87.5%, p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, lower Glasgow-Blatchford score, delayed referral, admissions between 7:00 and 19:00 hours or via the emergency department were independent predictors of delayed endoscopy. Early endoscopy was associated with reduced length of stay (median difference 1 d; p = 0.004), but not 30-d mortality (p = 0.344).

Conclusions

The majority of centres did not meet national standards for time to endoscopy. Strategic initiatives involving acute care services may be necessary to improve this outcome.

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.

Advances in the Therapy of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important medical emergency. Important recent advances are reviewed. These include further support for a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70-90 g/L. The Glasgow-Blatchford score remains the most useful assessment score for identifying the lowest risk patients suitable for outpatient management and predicting the need for intervention. Newer scores such as the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestive score (PNED) may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin improves outcomes and is underused. A new disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Over-the-scope clips and haemostatic powders appear to have some role as endoscopic salvage therapies. Non- H. pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers contribute to an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

Initial Assessment, Risk Stratification, and Early Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Inhospital mortality from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved with advances in medical and endoscopy therapy. Initial management includes resuscitation, hemodynamic monitoring, proton pump inhibitor therapy, and restrictive blood transfusion. Risk stratification scores help triage bleeding severity and provide prognosis. Upper endoscopy is recommended within 24 hours of presentation; select patients at lowest risk may be effectively treated as outpatients. Emergent endoscopy within 12 hours does not improve clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding, or need for surgery, despite an increased use of endoscopic treatment. There may be a benefit to emergent endoscopy in patients with evidence of active bleeding.

Outcomes and Role of Urgent Endoscopy in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and determined if urgent endoscopy is effective.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a Glasgow-Blatchford score greater than 7 who underwent endoscopy for acute nonvariceal UGIB at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, were included. Urgent (<6 h) and elective (6-48 h) endoscopies were defined according to the time to endoscopy after the initial presentation. The primary outcomes were mortality and rebleeding within 28 days of admission.

RESULTS

Among 961 patients, 571 patients underwent urgent endoscopy. The 28-day mortality rate was 2.5%, and the rebleeding rate was 10.4%. There were significant differences in mortality rate (1.6% vs 3.8%), the number of transfused packed red blood cells (2.6 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.1 packs), need for intervention (69.5% vs 53.5%), and embolization (2.8% vs 0.5%), but no differences in rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor use, and length of stay between the urgent and elective endoscopy groups. Mortality was associated with malignancy (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-9.62), cirrhosis (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.85-11.76), urgent endoscopy (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.95), failed primary endoscopic treatment (OR, 15.03; 95% CI, 4.63-48.82), and rebleeding (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.03-7.45). Rebleeding was associated with Forrest I ulcers (OR, 7.67; 95% CI, 2.71-21.69), Forrest II ulcers (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60), and coagulopathy (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy was an independent predictor of lower mortality rate but was not associated with rebleeding in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

Does Early Endoscopy Improve Mortality in Patients with Acute Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding? A Retrospective review

Introduction

Initial management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) aims towards aggressive fluid resuscitation to maintain hemodynamic stability. Existing evidence regarding the benefit of early endoscopy is unclear with some studies suggesting mortality benefits and some suggesting otherwise. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if there is any mortality benefit of doing early endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation.

Methods

From July 2013 to July 2016, 179 patients admitted with a diagnosis of non-variceal UGIB were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical variables including 30-day mortality were then compared between the patients who had endoscopy within 24 hours with those who had endoscopy after greater than 24 hours.

Results

Out of 179 patients admitted for non-variceal UGIB, 146 underwent endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation and 33 underwent endoscopy after 24 hours. The overall mortality associated with UGIB was 6.7% (12/179). There was no statistically significant difference found in 30-day mortality between the two groups (6.8% within 24 hours vs 6.1% after 24 hours). There was also no difference in 30-day readmission or rates of rebleeding among the two groups. The length of stay was also similar in both groups (6.0 days vs 6.1 days).

Conclusion

This study did not find any advantage of endoscopy within 24 hours on length of stay, rate of complications, and 30-day mortality. As hemostasis is achieved in almost 90% of patients with supportive management without any endoscopic intervention, focus should be made on aggressive fluid resuscitation to achieve hemodynamic stability before endoscopy.

Potential role for emergency physicians with endoscopy training in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a retrospective observational study

Aim

Urgent endoscopy is essential in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Emergency physicians with endoscopy training treat patients with GI bleeding in our hospital. We compared the management and clinical outcomes of GI bleeding cases between those treated by an emergency physician (EP) and those treated by a non‐emergency physician (NEP; e.g., gastroenterologist or general surgeon).

Methods

We undertook a retrospective chart review of upper GI bleeding cases treated using endoscopy in the emergency department between 2012 and 2014. We examined patients characteristics, endoscopic findings, hemostatic procedures, need for transfusion, rebleeding and adverse events, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

Results

The EP group included 33 patients (39%) and the NEP group included 51 (61%). Patient characteristics and diseases did not differ between the groups. The EP group underwent urgent endoscopy more often (100% versus 86%, P = 0.04). Procedure times were not statistically different between the groups. The EP group had fewer hemostatic procedures (42% versus 65%, P = 0.04). Transfusion requirements were lower in the EP group (0.5 U versus 2.1 U, P = 0.006). There were no statistical differences in rebleeding and adverse events. The length of hospital stay was shorter (8 versus 11 days, P = 0.03) and the in‐hospital mortality rate was lower in the EP group (0% versus 13.7%, P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Short‐term outcomes in GI bleeding cases managed by emergency physicians with endoscopy training were comparable to those by gastroenterologists and general surgeons. However, the extent of endoscopic training and experience emergency physicians should have remains unclear.

Recent advances in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage due to peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important cause of emergency presentation and hospital admission. Despite advances in many aspects of management, peptic ulcer bleeding is still associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Comprehensive international guidelines have been published, but advances as well as controversies continue to evolve. Important recent advances include the evidence supporting a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70–90 g/l. Comparative studies have confirmed that the Glasgow–Blatchford score remains the most useful score for predicting the need for intervention as well as for identifying the lowest-risk patients suitable for outpatient management. New scores, including the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score, may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin appears to improve outcomes and is probably underused. High-dose oral proton pump inhibition (PPI) for 11 days after PPI infusion is advantageous in those with a Rockall score of 6 or more. Oral is as effective as parenteral iron at restoring haemoglobin levels after a peptic ulcer bleed and both are superior to placebo in this respect. Within endoscopic techniques, haemostatic powders and over-the-scope clips can be used when other methods have failed. A disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Non- Helicobacter pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ulcers contribute an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a poor prognosis and high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

Relationship between timing of endoscopy and mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the association between timing of endoscopy and mortality in PUB.

METHODS

In a nationwide cohort study based on a database of consecutive patients admitted to the hospital with PUB in Denmark, patients were stratified according to the presence of hemodynamic instability at presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses, we identified optimal time frames for endoscopy and analyzed the association between timing of endoscopy and in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

In total, 12,601 patients were included. We did not find any universal association between timing of endoscopy and mortality in hemodynamically stable patients with an ASA score of 1 to 2. In hemodynamically stable patients with an ASA score of 3 to 5, endoscopy 12 to 36 hours after admission to the hospital was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR, .48; 95% CI, .34-.67) compared with endoscopy outside this time frame. In patients with hemodynamic instability, endoscopy 6 to 24 hours after admission to the hospital was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR, .73; 95% CI, .54-.98) compared with endoscopy outside this time frame.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of endoscopy is associated with mortality in patients with PUB and an ASA score of 3 to 5 or hemodynamic instability. Our findings suggest that in these patients, a period of time to optimize resuscitation and manage comorbidities before endoscopy may improve outcome.

Timing of upper endoscopy influences outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines advise that upper endoscopy be performed within 24 hours of presentation in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (UGIB). However, the role of urgent endoscopy (<12 hours) is controversial. Our aim was to assess whether patients admitted with acute nonvariceal UGIB with lower-risk versus high-risk bleeding have different outcomes with urgent compared with nonurgent endoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients admitted to an academic hospital with nonvariceal UGIB. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for surgical or interventional radiologic intervention, or endoscopic reintervention. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) was calculated; lower risk was defined as a GBS < 12, and high risk was defined as a GBS ≥ 12.

RESULTS

Of 361 patients, 37 patients (10%) experienced the primary outcome. Patients who underwent urgent endoscopy had a greater than 5-fold increased risk of reaching the composite outcome (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-11.4; P < .001). Lower-risk patients who were taken urgently to endoscopy were more likely to reach the composite outcome (adjusted OR, 0.71 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .008). However, in the high-risk patients, time to endoscopy was not a significant predictor of the primary outcome (adjusted OR, 0.93 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .47; adjusted P for interaction = .039).

CONCLUSION

Urgent endoscopy is a predictor of worse outcomes in select patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

Clinical outcome of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding after hours: the role of urgent endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study was performed to investigate the clinical role of urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) performed by experienced endoscopists after hours.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for consecutively collected data of patients with ANVUGIB between January 2009 and December 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients visited the emergency unit for ANVUGIB after hours. Among them, 60 underwent urgent EGD (within 8 hours) and 98 underwent early EGD (8 to 24 hours) by experienced endoscopists. The frequencies of hemodynamic instability, fresh blood aspirate on the nasogastric tube, and high-risk endoscopic findings were significantly higher in the urgent EGD group. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all except two patients. There were nine cases of recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality occurred in three patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in primary hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality. In a multiple linear regression analysis, urgent EGD significantly reduced the hospital stay compared with early EGD. In patients with a high clinical Rockall score (more than 3), urgent EGD tended to decrease the hospital stay, although this was not statistically significant (7.7 days vs. 12.0 days, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent EGD after hours by experienced endoscopists had an excellent endoscopic success rate. However, clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the urgent and early EGD groups.

A Clinical Decision Rule Based on the AST-to-Platelet Ratio Index Improves Adherence to Published Guidelines on the Management of Acute Variceal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) depends on identifying a variceal versus nonvariceal etiology. An objective measure predicting etiology could guide early management pending endoscopy. The AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) score has been studied as a marker of cirrhosis and portal hypertension, but has not been evaluated in the setting of acute UGIB.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we reviewed endoscopy reports and other data for patients with acute UGIB, and classified episodes as variceal bleeds or other. We assessed the diagnostic utility of the APRI score relative to other objective measures by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve analysis. We constructed a clinical decision rule based on the APRI score, and assessed how it would have changed management.

RESULTS

The APRI score performed well in predicting a variceal etiology of acute UGIB, with AUROC 0.89. We developed a clinical decision rule using an APRI score of 0.4 to guide early management of acute UGIB patients. Retroactively applying this to our cohort, adherence to published guidelines for administration of octreotide and antibiotics would have increased from 56% to 91%.

CONCLUSIONS

The APRI score is an objective metric that helps predict a variceal etiology of acute UGIB. Using our proposed decision rule could improve adherence to guidelines on management of acute variceal bleeding. Although we were unable to demonstrate a survival benefit, improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines serves as a metric related to this most important outcome measure. Prospective study to validate these findings is indicated.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

[Upper gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic shock at the end of the holidays: pre-hospital and in-hospital management of a gastrointestinal emergency]

Upon returning from holidays, a 55-year-old patient presenting with melena and haemorrhagic shock was admitted to a University hospital after receiving first emergency medical care in a German InterCity train. In an interdisciplinary effort, haemodynamics were stabilised and the airway and respiratory function were secured. Under emergency care conditions the patient then underwent an emergency upper GI endoscopy where a spurting arterial upper gastrointestinal bleeding (Forrest 1a) was found. While the bleeding could not be controlled with endoscopic techniques, definitive haemostasis was achieved with a surgical laparotomy. While not commonly established for patients with severe GI bleeding, by spontaneous implementation of an interdisciplinary trauma room approach following established trauma algorithms the team was able to achieve stabilisation of vital functions and final control of bleeding in this highly unstable patient. Although the majority of upper gastrointestinal bleedings spontaneously cease, emergency care algorithms should be developed and implemented for patients with severe gastrointestinal bleedings in shock. Following the case vignette, we discuss a potential approach and develop an exemplary protocol for shock room management in this patient subgroup.

Admission time is associated with outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) during the weekend have a worse outcome compared with weekdays, with an increased risk of recurrent bleeding and mortality.

AIM

To investigate the association between timing of admission and adverse outcome after UGIB.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of UGIB to the emergency room of eight participating hospitals. Using standard descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses, differences in 30-day mortality, rebleeding rate, and need for angiography and surgical intervention were assessed for week- and weekend admissions and time of admission. Moreover, patient- and procedure-related factors were identified that could influence outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 571 patients were included with suspected UGIB. Patient admitted during the weekend had a higher mortality rate than patients admitted during the week [9% vs.3%; adjusted odds ratio 2.68 (95%CI 1.07-6.72)]. Weekend admissions were not associated with other adverse outcomes. Patients admitted during the weekend presented more often with bleeding and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure. No differences were found in procedure-related factors. Time of admission was not associated with an adverse outcome, although patients admitted during the evening had a significantly longer time to endoscopy (15, 22 and 16 h for day, evening and night admissions respectively, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although quality of care did not appear to differ between week/weekend admissions, patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted during the weekend were at higher risk of an adverse outcome. This might be due to the fact that these patients have more severe haemorrhage.

Management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: current policies and future perspectives

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a gastroenterological emergency with a mortality of 6%-13%. The vast majority of these bleeds are due to peptic ulcers. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and Helicobacter pylori are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopy has become the mainstay for diagnosis and treatment of acute UGIB, and is recommended within 24 h of presentation. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration before endoscopy can downstage the bleeding lesion and reduce the need for endoscopic therapy, but has no effect on rebleeding, mortality and need for surgery. Endoscopic therapy should be undertaken for ulcers with high-risk stigmata, to reduce the risk of rebleeding. This can be done with a variety of modalities. High-dose PPI administration after endoscopy can prevent rebleeding and reduce the need for further intervention and mortality, particularly in patients with high-risk stigmata.

Update on the endoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal emergency, with peptic ulcer as the most common cause. Appropriate resuscitation followed by early endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment are of major importance in these patients. Endoscopy is recommended within 24 h of presentation. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for patients with high-risk stigmata, in particular those with active bleeding and visible vessels. The role of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with adherent clots remains to be elucidated. Ablative or mechanical therapies are superior to epinephrine injection alone in terms of prevention of rebleeding. The application of an ulcer-covering hemospray is a new promising tool. High dose proton pump inhibitors should be administered intravenously for 72 h after endoscopy in high-risk patients. Helicobacter pylori should be tested for in all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and eradicated if positive. These recommendations have been captured in a recent international guideline.

Live view video capsule endoscopy enables risk stratification of patients with acute upper GI bleeding in the emergency room: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification of patients with acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) in the emergency room (ER) enables appropriate triage to urgent endoscopy and therapeutic intervention.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of Live View Video Capsule Endoscopy (VCE) with Pillcam Eso(®) to accurately identify high and low risk patients with UGIB.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with a history of UGIB within 48 h of admission to the ER were randomized to VCE versus standard clinical assessment. VCE was read real-time at the bedside and later reviewed after download. Positive VCE findings included coffee grounds, blood clot, red blood, or a bleeding lesion. VCE positive patients underwent EGD within 6 h. Control patients and VCE negative patients underwent EGD within 24 h.

RESULTS

Seven of 12 patients were VCE positive. All seven had confirmatory stigmata at EGD. Of the five VCE negative patients, four had no stigmata at EGD and one was not endoscoped due to comorbidities. The actual lesion was visualized at VCE in four of 12 patients during live view and in an additional two patients after download (6/12). Time to endoscopy in the VCE positive group was significantly shorter than control patients (2.5 vs. 8.9 h, P = 0.029). There was no mortality. Blood transfusion requirement and length of stay were not significantly different in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Live view VCE accurately identifies high and low risk ER patients with UGIB. Use of VCE to risk stratify these patients significantly reduced time to emergent EGD and therapeutic intervention.

Nasogastric aspiration and lavage in emergency department patients with hematochezia or melena without hematemesis

OBJECTIVES

The utility of nasogastric aspiration and lavage in the emergency management of patients with melena or hematochezia without hematemesis is controversial. This evidence-based emergency medicine review evaluates the following question: does nasogastric aspiration and lavage in patients with melena or hematochezia and no hematemesis differentiate an upper from lower source of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding?

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched. Studies were selected for inclusion in the review if the authors had performed nasogastric aspiration (with or without lavage) in all patients with hematochezia or melena and performed esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) in all patients. Studies were excluded if they enrolled patients with history of esophageal varices or included patients with hematemesis or coffee ground emesis (unless the data for patients without hematemesis or coffee ground emesis could be separated out). The outcome was identifying upper GI hemorrhage (active bleeding or high-risk lesions potentially responsible for hemorrhage) and the rate of complications associated with the nasogastric tube insertion. Quality of the included studies was assessed using standard criteria for diagnostic accuracy studies.

RESULTS

Three retrospective studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The prevalence of an upper GI source for patients with melena or hematochezia without hematemesis was 32% to 74%. According to the included studies, the diagnostic performance of the nasogastric aspiration and lavage for predicting upper GI bleeding is poor. The sensitivity of this test ranged from 42% to 84%, the specificity from 54% to 91%, and negative likelihood ratios from 0.62 to 0.20. Only one study reported the rate complications associated with nasogastric aspiration and lavage (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nasogastric aspiration, with or without lavage, has a low sensitivity and poor negative likelihood ratio, which limits its utility in ruling out an upper GI source of bleeding in patients with melena or hematochezia without hematemesis.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Interventional Endoscopy in Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease according to the Timing of Endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal timing for interventional endoscopy in bleeding peptic ulcer disease is controversial. This study compared the outcomes between early endoscopy and delayed endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective analysis of data from 90 patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease who visited the emergency room between May 2006 and September 2007. Patients were categorized into two groups: the early-endoscopy group (admitted during the daytime or at night with prompt endoscopic management) and the delayed-endoscopy group (admitted at night or during weekends, with endoscopic management delayed until the next day). We compared the clinical outcomes of endoscopy between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were 49 patients in the early-endoscopy group and 41 patients in the delayed-endoscopy group. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, bleeding control modality, and Rockall score did not differ between the two groups. There were also no significant differences between the early- and delayed-endoscopy groups in the re-bleeding rate (3/49 vs 5/41, p=0.313), the duration of hospital stay (10.7 vs 9.3 days, p=0.437), and the total amount of blood transfused (3.4 vs 2.7 units, p=0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of interventional endoscopy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease is not significantly affected by the timing of endoscopy.

Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how urgent is it?

Early endoscopy has been advocated for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but the optimal timing for early endoscopy is still uncertain. The aim of this Review is to evaluate the optimal timing of early endoscopy by examining the findings of randomized clinical trials and retrospective cohort studies that used comparable outcome measures and have been reported in the literature. Outcome measurements included recurrent bleeding, surgery, mortality, length of hospital stay, and blood transfusion. Studies were categorized into those in which endoscopy was performed within 2-3 h, 6-8 h, 12 h or 24 h of the patient's presentation to hospital. We conclude that early endoscopy aids risk stratification of patients and reduces the need for hospitalization. However, it may also expose additional cases of active bleeding and hence increase the use of therapeutic endoscopy. No evidence exists that very early endoscopy (within a few hours of presentation) can reduce the risk of rebleeding or improve survival.

Use and impact of early endoscopy in elderly patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy performed within 1 day of presentation, or early endoscopy, has been proposed as an intervention to improve the efficiency and outcomes of care for patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage. However, the use and outcomes have not been studied in a national, U.S.-based sample.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and associated outcomes of early versus delayed endoscopy in bleeding peptic ulcers.

DESIGN

Using a 5% random sample of inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims from 2004 in patients aged 66 years and older (mean [standard deviation] age 78.4 +/- 7.7 years), we identified 2592 patients, all of whom underwent endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Univariate and multivariate models were used to determine factors associated with 30-day mortality, upper GI surgery, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Early endoscopy was performed in 1854 patients (71.5%) and was somewhat more common with outpatient management. Early endoscopy was independently associated with a significant decrease in the length of hospital stay (-1.95 days, 95% CI, -2.60 to -1.29 days) as well as a lower likelihood of surgery (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66). Early endoscopy was not associated with 30-day mortality in either univariate or multivariate analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Use of claims data lacking clinical detail and restriction to the Medicare-age population.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study of older patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage, early endoscopy was associated with increased efficiency of care, lower rates of surgery, and potentially improved control of hemorrhage. Thus, unless specific contraindications exist, the data support the routine use of early endoscopy.