Prophylactic tracheal intubation for upper GI bleeding: A meta-analysis

Should Prophylactic Endotracheal Intubation Be Performed in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

No consensus exists on the standard of intraoperative airway management approach to prevent endoscopy complications in acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Eight years after our initial meta-analysis, we reassessed the effect of prophylactic endotracheal intubation in acute GI bleeding in hospitalized patients. Multiple databases were reviewed in 2024, identifying 10 studies that compared prophylactic endotracheal intubation (PEI) versus no intubation in acute upper GI bleeding in hospitalized patients. Outcomes of interest included pneumonia, length of hospital stay, aspiration, and mortality. The odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) using the random effects model was calculated for each outcome. In total, 11 studies (10 retrospective, one prospective) were included in the meta-analysis (n = 7,332). PEI demonstrated statistically significant higher odds of pneumonia (OR = 5.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.15-10.79; p < 0.01) and longer length of stays (MD = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.12-1.56; p = 0.02). However, mortality (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.78-3.64; p = 0.19) and aspiration (OR = 2.79; 95% CI = 0.89-8.7; p = 0.08) were not statistically significant. PEI before esophagogastroduodenoscopy for hospitalized upper GI bleeding patients is associated with an increased incidence of pneumonia within 48 hours and prolonged hospitalization but no statistically significant increased risk of mortality or aspiration.

Cardiopulmonary prognosis of prophylactic endotracheal intubation in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopy

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether prophylactic endotracheal intubation (PEI) protects the airway before endoscopy in critically ill patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The study aimed to explore the predictive value of PEI for cardiopulmonary outcomes and identify high-risk patients with UGIB undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing endoscopy for UGIB were retrospectively enrolled in the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). The composite cardiopulmonary outcomes included aspiration, pneumonia, pulmonary edema, shock or hypotension, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmia. The incidence of cardiopulmonary outcomes within 48 h after endoscopy was compared between the PEI and non-PEI groups. Logistic regression analyses and propensity score matching analyses were performed to estimate effects of PEI on cardiopulmonary outcomes. Moreover, restricted cubic spline plots were used to assess for any threshold effects in the association between baseline variables and risk of cardiopulmonary outcomes (yes/no) in the PEI group.

RESULTS

A total of 946 patients were divided into the PEI group (108/946, 11.4%) and the non-PEI group (838/946, 88.6%). After propensity score matching, the PEI group (n=50) had a higher incidence of cardiopulmonary outcomes (58.0% vs. 30.3%, P=0.001). PEI was a risk factor for cardiopulmonary outcomes after adjusting for confounders (odds ratio [OR] 3.176, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.567-6.438, P=0.001). The subgroup analysis indicated the similar results. A shock index >0.77 was a predictor for cardiopulmonary outcomes in patients undergoing PEI (P=0.015). The probability of cardiopulmonary outcomes in the PEI group depended on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.465, 95% CI 1.079-1.989, P=0.014) and shock index >0.77 (compared with shock index ≤0.77 [OR 2.981, 95% CI 1.186-7.492, P=0.020, AUC=0.764]).

CONCLUSION

PEI may be associated with cardiopulmonary outcomes in elderly and critically ill patients with UGIB undergoing endoscopy. Furthermore, a shock index greater than 0.77 could be used as a predictor of a worse prognosis in patients undergoing PEI.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Bacterial infections in patients with acute variceal bleeding in the era of antibiotic prophylaxis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the risk of infection and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding (AVB). This study examines the incidence of, and risk factors for, bacterial infections during hospitalization in patients with AVB on antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed using the database of an international, multicenter, observational study designed to examine the role of pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in patients with cirrhosis and AVB. Data were collected on patients with cirrhosis hospitalized for AVB (n = 2,138) from a prospective cohort (October 2013-May 2015) at 34 referral centers, and a retrospective cohort (October 2011-September 2013) at 19 of these centers. The primary outcome was incidence of bacterial infection during hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 1,656 patients out of 1,770 (93.6%) received antibiotic prophylaxis; third-generation cephalosporins (76.2%) and quinolones (19.0%) were used most frequently. Of the patients on antibiotic prophylaxis, 320 patients developed bacterial infection during hospitalization. Respiratory infection accounted for 43.6% of infections and for 49.7% of infected patients, and occurred early after admission (median 3 days, IQR 1-6). On multivariate analysis, respiratory infection was independently associated with Child-Pugh C (odds ratio [OR] 3.1; 95% CI 1.4-6.7), grade III-IV encephalopathy (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8-4.4), orotracheal intubation for endoscopy (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.8-3.8), nasogastric tube placement (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.4) or esophageal balloon tamponade (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2-4.9).

CONCLUSION

Bacterial infections develop in almost one-fifth of patients with AVB despite antibiotic prophylaxis. Respiratory infection is the most frequent, is an early event after admission, and is associated with advanced liver failure, severe hepatic encephalopathy and use of nasogastric tube, orotracheal intubation for endoscopy or esophageal balloon tamponade.

LAY SUMMARY

Bacterial infections develop during hospitalization in close to 20% of patients with acute variceal bleeding despite antibiotic prophylaxis. Respiratory bacterial infections are the most frequent and occur early after admission. Respiratory infection is associated with advanced liver disease, severe hepatic encephalopathy and a need for a nasogastric tube, orotracheal intubation for endoscopy or esophageal balloon tamponade.

Prophylactic endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Prophylactic endotracheal intubation for airway protection prior to endoscopy for the management of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is controversial. The aim of this meta‐analysis is to examine the clinical outcomes and costs related to prophylactic endotracheal intubation compared to no intubation in UGIB.

Methods

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used to identify studies through June 2017. Data regarding mortality, total hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), pneumonia, and cardiovascular events were collected. The DerSimonian‐Laird random effects models were used to calculate the inverse variance‐based weighted, pooled treatment effect across studies.

Results

Seven studies (five manuscripts and two abstracts) were identified (5662 total patients). Prophylactic intubation conferred an increased risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–6.64), hospital LOS (mean difference, 0.96 days, 95% CI: 0.26–1.67), and pneumonia (OR 6.58, 95% CI: 4.91–8.81]) compared to endoscopy without intubation. The LOS‐related cost was greater when prophylactic intubation was performed ($9020 per patient, 95% CI: $6962–10 609) compared to when it was not performed ($7510 per patient, 95% CI: $6486–8432). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular events after sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Prophylactic intubation in severe UGIB is associated with a greater risk of pneumonia, LOS, death, and cost compared to endoscopy without intubation. Randomized trials examining this issue are warranted.

Prophylactic Endotracheal Intubation in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Undergoing Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) often require urgent or emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and are at risk of complications such as aspiration of gastric content or blood. The role of prophylactic endotracheal intubation (PEI) in the absence of usual respiratory status-related indications is not well established.

Methods:

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library's Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and SCOPUS from inception through July 2017 without date or language of publication restriction. We included studies that compared PEI with usual care (UC) in patients with acute UGIB, and reported any of the following outcomes: aspiration, pneumonia, mortality and length of stay. We excluded studies in which majority of included patients required intubation due to respiratory failure or decreased level of consciousness. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

Results:

We did not identify any randomized trials on this topic. We included 10 observational studies (n = 6068). We were not able to perform any adjusted analyses. PEI was associated with a significant increase in aspiration (OR 3.85, 95% CI, 1.46, 10.25; P = 0.01; I²= 56%; low-quality evidence), pneumonia (OR 4.17, 95% CI, 1.82, 9.57; P = 0.0007; I²=52%; low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (mean difference 0.86 days, 95% CI 0.13, 1.59; P = 0.02; I²= 0; low-quality evidence), without clear effect on mortality (OR 1.92, 95% CI, 0.71, 5.23; P = 0.2; I²= 95%; very low-quality evidence).

Conclusions:

Low- to very low-quality evidence from observational studies suggests that PEI in the setting of UGIB may be associated with higher rates of respiratory complications and, less likely, with increased mortality. Although the results are alarming, the lack of higher quality evidence calls for randomized trials to inform practice.

Bacterial infections in acute variceal hemorrhage despite antibiotics-a multicenter study of predictors and clinical impact

Background and aims

Current guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in all patients presenting with cirrhosis and acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH). We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical impact of "early" infections (developing within 14 days) of AVH in a real-world setting.

Methods

We analyzed retrospective data from a cohort of 371 adult patients with cirrhosis and AVH all of whom had received antibiotic prophylaxis (74% men; mean age 56 years), admitted to tertiary care hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Barcelona, Spain. Sensitivity analyses were presented for culture-positive (confirmed) infections.

Results

The mean MELD was 16. Fifty-two percent of patients received quinolones, 45% third-generation cephalosporins and 3% other antibiotics. Fourteen percent (51/371) developed an infection within 14 days of AVH. Seventy-five percent of infections were culture positive and occurred at a mean of six days from AVH. When all infections were considered, respiratory infections were the most common (53%) followed by urinary tract infections (17%) and bacteremia (16%). Resistance patterns differed between countries. Outpatient antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 5.4) and intubation (OR 2.6) were independent predictors of bacterial infection. Bacterial infection (OR 2.6) and the MELD (OR 1.2) were independent predictors of six-week mortality.

Conclusions

Early bacterial infections develop in 14% of cirrhotic patients with AVH despite antibiotic prophylaxis, and have a negative impact on six-week mortality. Intubation and outpatient antibiotic prophylaxis are associated with increased risk of early bacterial infections. Patients at risk should be followed closely with prompt infection workup and local antibiogram-based expansion of antibiotic therapy in case of clinical decline.

Risk Factors for Aspiration Pneumonia After Endoscopic Hemostasis

BACKGROUND

Although all types of endoscopic procedures harbor risk of aspiration, little is understood about risk factors for aspiration pneumonia developing after endoscopic hemostasis.

AIMS

The present study aimed to identify risk factors for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic hemostasis.

METHODS

Charts from consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding that had been treated by endoscopic hemostasis at a single center between January 2004 and January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient information and clinical characteristics including cause of hemorrhage, established prognostic scales, laboratory data, comorbidities, medications, duration of endoscopic hemostasis, vital signs, sedative use, and the main operator during the procedure were compared between patients who developed aspiration pneumonia and those who did not.

RESULTS

Aspiration pneumonia developed in 24 (4.8%) of 504 patients after endoscopic hemostasis. Endotracheal intubation was required for three of them, and one died of the complication. Multivariate analysis revealed that age >75 years (odds ratio (OR) 4.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-13.6; p = 0.0073), procedural duration >30 min (OR 5.6; 95% CI 1.9-18.2; p = 0.0023), hemodialysis (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.2-11; p = 0.024), and a history of stroke (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1-14; p = 0.041) were independent risk factors for developing aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific risk factors for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic hemostasis were identified. Endoscopists should carefully consider aspiration pneumonia when managing older patients who are on hemodialysis, have a history of stroke, and undergo a longer procedure.