Search

DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose

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.