Evaluating the process of care in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: a survey of expert vs. non-expert gastroenterologists

Acute on chronic gastrointestinal bleeding: a unique clinical entity

Gastrointestinal bleeding is defined in temporal-spatial terms-as acute or chronic, and/or by its location in the gastrointestinal tract. Here, we define a distinct type of bleeding, which we have coined 'acute on chronic' gastrointestinal bleeding. We prospectively identified all patients who underwent endoscopic evaluation for any form of gastrointestinal bleeding at a University Hospital. Acute on chronic bleeding was defined as the presence of new symptoms or signs of acute bleeding in the setting of chronic bleeding, documented as iron deficiency anemia. Bleeding lesions were categorized using previously established criteria. We identified a total of 776, 254, and 430 patients with acute, chronic, or acute on chronic bleeding, respectively. In patients with acute on chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, lesions were most commonly identified in esophagus (28%), colon and rectum (27%), and stomach (21%) (p<0.0001 vs locations for acute or chronic bleeding). In those specifically with acute on chronic upper gastrointestinal bleeding (n=260), bleeding was most commonly due to portal hypertensive lesions, identified in 47% of subjects compared with 29% of acute and 25% of chronic bleeders, (p<0.001). In all patients with acute on chronic bleeding, 30-day mortality was less than that after acute bleeding alone (2% (10/430) vs 7% (54/776), respectively, p<0.001). Acute on chronic gastrointestinal bleeding is common, and in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding was most often a result of portal hypertensive upper gastrointestinal tract pathology. Reduced mortality in patients with acute on chronic gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those with acute bleeding raises the possibility of an adaptive response.

Acceptance of inflammatory bowel disease treatment recommendations based on appropriateness ratings: do practicing gastroenterologists agree with experts?

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness criteria for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been developed by expert panels. Little is known about the acceptance of such recommendations by care providers. The aim was to explore how treatment decisions of practicing gastroenterologists differ from those of experts, using a vignette case study and a focus group.

METHODS

Seventeen clinical vignettes were drawn from clinical indications evaluated by the expert panel. A vignette case questionnaire asking for treatment options in 9 or 10 clinical situations was submitted to 26 practicing gastroenterologists. For each vignette case, practitioners’ answers on treatments deemed appropriate were compared with panel decisions. Qualitative analysis was performed on focus group discussion to explore acceptance and divergence reasons.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-nine clinical vignettes were completed, 98 for CD and 141 for UC.Divergence between proposed treatments and panel recommendations was more frequent for CD (34%) than for UC (27%). Among UC clinical vignettes, the main divergences with the panel were linked to 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) failure assessment and to situations in which stopping treatment was the main decision. For CD, the propositions of care providers diverged from the panel in mild to moderate active disease, for which practitioners were more prone to an accelerated step-up than the panel’s recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In about one-third of vignette cases, inflammatory bowel disease treatment propositions made by practicing gastroenterologists diverged from expert recommendations. Practicing gastroenterologists may experience difficulty in applying recommendations in daily practice.

Adherence to guidelines: a national audit of the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The REASON registry

OBJECTIVES

To assess process of care in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) using a national cohort, and to identify predictors of adherence to 'best practice' standards.

METHODS

Consecutive charts of patients hospitalized for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding across 21 Canadian hospitals were reviewed. Data regarding initial presentation, endoscopic management and outcomes were collected. Results were compared with 'best practice' using established guidelines on NVUGIB. Adherence was quantified and independent predictors were evaluated using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 2020 patients (89.4% NVUGIB, variceal in 10.6%) were included (mean [± SD] age 66.3±16.4 years; 38.4% female). Endoscopy was performed in 1612 patients: 1533 with NVUGIB had endoscopic lesions (63.1% ulcers; high-risk stigmata in 47.8%). Early endoscopy was performed in 65.6% and an assistant was present in 83.5%. Only 64.5% of patients with high-risk stigmata received endoscopic hemostasis; 9.8% of patients exhibiting low-risk stigmata also did. Intravenous proton pump inhibitor was administered after endoscopic hemostasis in 95.7%. Rebleeding and mortality rates were 10.5% and 9.4%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that low American Society of Anesthesiologists score patients had fewer assistants present during endoscopy (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.83), a hemoglobin level <70 g⁄L predicted inappropriate high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in patients with low-risk stigmata, and endoscopies performed during regular hours were associated with longer delays from presentation (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.24 to 0.47]).

CONCLUSION

There was variability between the process of care and 'best practice' in NVUGIB. Certain patient and situational characteristics may influence guideline adherence. Dissemination initiatives must identify and focus on such considerations to improve quality of care.

Low adherence to Helicobacter pylori testing in hospitalized patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) testing in patients with bleeding ulcers is recommended by society guidelines and considered a quality indicator. The aim of the study is to examine the proportion of patients with bleeding ulcers who had H. pylori testing and identify predictors associated with H. pylori testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive hospitalized patients with bleeding ulcers documented endoscopically at a single center from 10/2004-5/2011 were identified retrospectively from an endoscopy database. The proportion of patients undergoing direct H. pylori testing (histology, rapid urease test, breath test or stool antigen) and any H. pylori testing (direct or serologic) were determined.

RESULTS

Among 330 patients with bleeding ulcers, 105 (32%, 95% CI 27-37%) underwent direct testing and another 52 (16%, 95% CI 12-20%) had serologic testing during a median follow-up of 9 months (range, 0-86). H. pylori testing occurred at the index hospitalization in 146 (93%) of the 157 patients tested. Among the 105 patients who had direct H. pylori testing, 90 (86%) had biopsy-based testing during the initial endoscopy. On multivariate analysis, undergoing biopsy of a gastric ulcer was strongly associated with having direct H. pylori testing performed (OR = 5.1, 95% CI 2.3-11.5; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with bleeding ulcers, less than half received H. pylori testing and less than a third received the more accurate direct testing. Most of the direct H. pylori testing was biopsy-based with very few being tested after the index hospitalization. Efforts to increase H. pylori testing in patients with bleeding ulcers are needed to improve outcomes.

Predictors of early rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to high-risk lesions

BACKGROUND

In an era of increasingly shortened admissions, data regarding predictors of early rebleeding among patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) exhibiting high-risk stigmata (HRS) having undergone endoscopic hemostasis are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine predictors of early rebleeding, defined as rebleeding before completion of recommended 72 h intravenous proton pump inhibitor infusion postendoscopic hemostasis.

METHODS

Data from a national registry of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (the REASON registry) were accessed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were sequentially performed to identify significant independent predictors among a comprehensive list of clinical and laboratory characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients underwent endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS. Forty patients rebled ≤72 h thereafter (32.5% female, mean [± SD] age 70.2 ± 11.8 years, 2.88 ± 2.11 comorbidities), while 21 rebled later (38.1% female, mean 70.5 ± 14.1 years of age, 2.62 ± 2.06 comorbidities). Hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate was identified as the sole independent significant predictor of early rebleeding versus later among both NVUGIB and, more specifically, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (OR 7.94 [95% CI 1.80 to 35.01]; P<0.01, and OR 8.41 [95% CI 1.54 to 46.10]; P=0.014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When attempting to determine the optimal duration of pharmacotherapy and timing of discharge for patients following endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS, it is noteworthy that individuals who present with hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate are at particularly high risk for rebleeding within the first 72 h.

Diversity of endoscopy center operations and practice variation across California's safety-net hospital system: a statewide survey

Background

Little is known about endoscopic services provided or operational practice variation within California public hospital endoscopy centers.

Methods

A survey was distributed to all 18 California public hospitals with endoscopy centers to assess operational practices.

Results

Eight of 18 hospitals responded to the survey. Six of the eight responding hospitals used a closed access system for patient referrals. Mean wait time for an endoscopic procedure was 42.4 ± 37.7 days (N = 8) with a mean procedure no-show/cancellation rate of 14.5 ± 8.0% (N = 7). All responding public hospitals performed colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, PEG tube placement, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with two hospitals performing endoscopic ultrasound. There was significant practice variation in the documentation of endoscopic quality and performance measurements among the responding hospitals. Multiple methods were used to communicate pathology results to patients: GI clinic visit (6/8), primary physician (4/8), telephone (2/8) or letter (1/8).

Conclusion

Our study highlights the diversity and practice variations of endoscopy center operations at California public hospitals and serves as a catalyst for future collaborations among safety-net hospitals.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: predictors of risk in a mixed patient group including variceal and nonvariceal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Effective management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) relies on the application of clinical risk scores. The validation of risk scores has to date focused mainly on nonvariceal UGIB groups. We aimed to evaluate our clinical and endoscopic management of UGIB, and to validate existing risk scores for a mixed patient population with a high percentage of variceal bleeds.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Analysis included UGIB patients presenting consecutively to a tertiary referral university hospital. All patients had been admitted by our emergency department and had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clinical, biochemical and endoscopic data were recorded. Clinical and complete Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were calculated for all patients and statistical analysis was carried out by a multiple logistical regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 21% of patients had variceal bleeds. There was considerable heterogeneity between groups with the variceal group having more comorbidities (P=0.003), lower haemoglobin (P=0.003) and lower systolic blood pressure (P=0.013) at presentation. This translated to higher risk scores (P<0.0001) and worse clinical outcomes (rebleeding P=0.004). Only complete Rockall score was predictive of outcome (rebleeding P=0.004, AUC 0.8). Blatchford score did not predict bleeding or mortality. However, no patient with a Blatchford score of 0 had an adverse clinical outcome.

CONCLUSION

Postendoscopic Rockall score can be used as a predictor of outcome for mixed UGIB groups. Although Blatchford score did not predict outcome in our study, at a 0 level it does appear to be a safe triage tool for pre-endoscopic identification of patients with variceal bleeds, even where there is no known history of liver disease.

Impact of nasogastric lavage on outcomes in acute GI bleeding

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric lavage (NGL) is often performed early in the management of GI bleeding. This practice assumes that NGL results can assist with timely risk stratification and management.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a retrospective analysis to test whether NGL is associated with improved process measures and outcomes in GI bleeding.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched retrospective analysis.

SETTING

University-based Veterans Affairs medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 632 patients admitted with GI bleeding.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Thirty-day mortality rate, length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements, surgery, and time to endoscopy.

RESULTS

Patients receiving NGL were more likely to take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and be admitted to intensive care, but less likely to have metastatic disease or tachycardia, be taking warfarin, or present on weekdays. After propensity matching, NGL did not affect mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.92), length of hospital stay (7.3 vs 8.1 days, P = .57), surgery (OR 1.51; 95% CI, 0.42-5.43), or transfusions (3.2 vs 3.0 units, P = .94). However, NGL was associated with earlier time to endoscopy (hazard ratio 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.04), and bloody aspirates were associated high-risk lesions (OR 2.69; 95% CI, 1.08-6.73).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing NGL is associated with the earlier performance of endoscopy, but does not affect clinical outcomes. Performing NGL at initial triage may promote more timely process of care, but further studies will be needed to confirm these findings.

Is irritable bowel syndrome a diagnosis of exclusion?: a survey of primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and IBS experts

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines emphasize that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is not a diagnosis of exclusion and encourage clinicians to make a positive diagnosis using the Rome criteria alone. Yet many clinicians are concerned about overlooking alternative diagnoses. We measured beliefs about whether IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and measured testing proclivity between IBS experts and community providers.

METHODS

We developed a survey to measure decision-making in two standardized patients with Rome III-positive IBS, including IBS with diarrhea (D-IBS) and IBS with constipation (C-IBS). The survey elicited provider knowledge and beliefs about IBS, including testing proclivity and beliefs regarding IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion. We surveyed nurse practitioners, primary care physicians, community gastroenterologists, and IBS experts.

RESULTS

Experts were less likely than nonexperts to endorse IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion (8 vs. 72%; P<0.0001). In the D-IBS vignette, experts were more likely to make a positive diagnosis of IBS (67 vs. 38%; P<0.001), to perform fewer tests (2.0 vs. 4.1; P<0.01), and to expend less money on testing (US$297 vs. $658; P<0.01). Providers who believed IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion ordered 1.6 more tests and consumed $364 more than others (P<0.0001). Experts only rated celiac sprue screening and complete blood count as appropriate in D-IBS; nonexperts rated most tests as appropriate. Parallel results were found in the C-IBS vignette.

CONCLUSIONS

Most community providers believe IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion; this belief is associated with increased resource use. Experts comply more closely with guidelines to diagnose IBS with minimal testing. This disconnect suggests that better implementation of guidelines is warranted to minimize variation and improve cost-effectiveness of care.

Methodology for randomized trials of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: recommendations from an international consensus conference

The aim of this document is to provide a methodological framework for the design, performance, analysis, interpretation, and communication of randomized trials that assess management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Literature searches were performed and an iterative process with electronic and face-to-face meetings was used to achieve consensus among panel members as part of an International Consensus Conference on Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Recommendations of the panel include the following. Randomized trials must explicitly state their primary hypothesis. A nonmanipulable randomization schedule with concealed allocation should be used. Stratification (e.g., for age and stigmata of hemorrhage) may be considered, especially in smaller studies. The patient and personnel providing care or recording information should be blinded. Inclusion criteria should be overt bleeding with endoscopy performed within 24 h or less. One type of lesion (e.g., ulcer) should be studied with stigmata to be included predefined. Use of placebo/no therapy vs. active controls depends on current standard practice. Standardizing study and key non-study interventions should ensure uniform provision of interventions. Criteria for repeat endoscopy and subsequent interventions should be predefined. The primary end point should be further bleeding (persistent and recurrent bleeding) with primary assessment at 7 days; mortality, with primary assessment at 30 days, would be appropriate in very large trials. Sample size calculation based on assumptions regarding primary end point results with regard to study intervention and control must be provided, and all patients enrolled must be accounted for. In general, the primary population for analysis is all patients randomized, although a per-protocol population may be used if this is the more conservative approach (e.g., equivalence study).

Is there "cherry picking" in the ESRD Program? Perceptions from a Dialysis Provider Survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Changes in ESRD reimbursement policy, including proposed bundled payment, have raised concern that dialysis facilities may use "cherry picking" practices to attract a healthier, better insured, or more adherent patient population.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

As part of a national survey to measure beliefs about drivers of quality in dialysis, respondents were asked about their perceptions of cherry picking, including the frequency and effect of various cherry picking strategies on dialysis outcomes. We surveyed a random sample of 250 nurse members of the American Nephrology Nurses Association, 250 nephrologist members of the American Medical Association, 50 key opinion leaders, and 2000 physician members of the Renal Physicians Association. We tested hypothesized predictors of perception, including provider group, region, age, experience, and the main practice facility features.

RESULTS

Three-quarters of respondents reported that cherry picking occurred "sometimes" or "frequently." There were no differences in perceptions by provider or facility characteristics, insurance status, or health status. In multivariable regression, perceived cherry picking was 2.8- and 3.5-fold higher in the northeast and Midwest, respectively, versus the west. Among various cherry picking strategies, having a "low threshold to 'fire' chronic no-shows/late arrivers," and having a "low threshold to 'fire' for noncompliance with diet and meds" had the largest perceived association with outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Under current reimbursement practices, dialysis caregivers perceive that cherry picking is common and important. An improved understanding of cherry picking practices, if evident, may help to protect vulnerable patients if reimbursement practices were to change.