Search

ObjectivesExisting scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.Design and settingInternational cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score’s performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.Participants and resultsWe included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81–84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65–0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4–7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; pConclusionsIn contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7–9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10 ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

BACKGROUND Restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion reduces mortality and rebleeding after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, there is no evidence to guide transfusion strategies in lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). AIM To assess the association between RBC transfusion strategies and outcomes in patients with LGIB METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the UK National Comparative Audit of LGIB and the Use of Blood. The relationships between liberal RBC transfusion and clinical outcomes of rebleeding, mortality and a composite outcome for safe discharge were examined. Transfusion strategy was dichotomised and defined as "liberal" when transfusion was administered for haemoglobin (Hb) ≥80 g/L (or ≥90 g/L in patients with acute coronary syndrome) or major haemorrhage, and "restrictive" otherwise. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the independent association between liberal RBC transfusion and outcomes. RESULTS Of 2528 consecutive patients enrolled from 143 hospitals in the original study, 666 (26.3%) received RBC transfusion (mean age 73.3 ± 16 years, 49% female, initial mean haemoglobin 90 ± 24 g/L, 2.3% had haemodynamic instability). The rebleeding rate in transfused patients was 42.3%. After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no difference between liberal and restrictive RBC transfusion strategies for the odds of rebleeding (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6-1.22), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3-1.1) or of achieving the composite outcome (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.5-1.1). CONCLUSION Although these results could be due to residual confounding, they provide an important foundation for the design of randomised trials to evaluate transfusion strategies for LGIB.

This is the first UK national guideline to concentrate on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and has been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). The Guidelines Development Group consisted of representatives from the BSG Endoscopy Committee, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Interventional Radiology, the Royal College of Radiologists, NHS Blood and Transplant and a patient representative. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken and the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations appraised according to the GRADE(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. These guidelines focus on the diagnosis and management of acute LGIB in adults, including methods of risk assessment and interventions to diagnose and treat bleeding (colonoscopy, computed tomography, mesenteric angiography, endoscopic therapy, embolisation and surgery). Recommendations are included on the management of patients who develop LGIB while receiving anticoagulants (including direct oral anticoagulants) or antiplatelet drugs. The appropriate use of blood transfusion is also discussed, including haemoglobin triggers and targets.

Summary Background Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission, and identification of patients at low risk of harm, who are therefore suitable for outpatient investigation, is a clinical and research priority. We aimed to develop and externally validate a simple risk score to identify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding who could safely avoid hospital admission. Methods We undertook model development with data from the National Comparative Audit of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding from 143 hospitals in the UK in 2015. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to identify predictors of safe discharge, defined as the absence of rebleeding, blood transfusion, therapeutic intervention, 28 day readmission, or death. The model was converted into a simplified risk scoring system and was externally validated in 288 patients admitted with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (184 safely discharged) from two UK hospitals (Charing Cross Hospital, London, and Hammersmith Hospital, London) that had not contributed data to the development cohort. We calculated C statistics for the new model and did a comparative assessment with six previously developed risk scores. Findings Of 2336 prospectively identified admissions in the development cohort, 1599 (68%) were safely discharged. Age, sex, previous admission for lower gastrointestinal bleeding, rectal examination findings, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and haemoglobin concentration strongly discriminated safe discharge in the development cohort (C statistic 0·84, 95% CI 0·82–0·86) and in the validation cohort (0·79, 0·73–0·84). Calibration plots showed the new risk score to have good calibration in the validation cohort. The score was better than the Rockall, Blatchford, Strate, BLEED, AIMS65, and NOBLADS scores in predicting safe discharge. A score of 8 or less predicts a 95% probability of safe discharge. Interpretation We developed and validated a novel clinical prediction model with good discriminative performance to identify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding who are suitable for safe outpatient management, which has important economic and resource implications. Funding Bowel Disease Research Foundation and National Health Service Blood and Transplant.

We thank Dr Leeds et al for their interest and comments1 on the British Society of Gastroenterology guideline on the diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).2 They are quite correct to highlight the difference in evidence supporting therapeutic endoscopy in LGIB as opposed to upper. There is only one randomised trial that directly compared timing of colonoscopy in patients hospitalised with LGIB, which as the authors’ state demonstrated no difference in clinical outcomes, however, the trial was terminated before the required sample size had been reached.3 Pooled analysis in a systematic review of non-randomised studies demonstrated that early colonoscopy was associated with higher diagnostic and therapeutic yields and most importantly a shorter length of …

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) develops in the oesophagus, stomach or duodenum and has an incidence of 47/100,000. Lower GIB (LGIB) develops in the small bowel, colon or anorectum and has an incidence of 33/100,000. Where the incidence of UGIB has fallen, driven by helicobacter pylori eradication and the use of proton pump inhibitors, the incidence of LGIB may be increasing. Interventions such as early endoscopy, risk assessment and national guidelines have improved clinical outcomes but have had limited impact on the economic burden of GIB. Previously LGIB was thought to be less severe than UGIB, but contemporary data suggest that patients with LGIB tend to have a longer length of hospital stay and may be at higher risk of death or re-bleeding.

Background & Aims Patients who develop lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) while receiving anti-coagulants or anti-platelets have increased severity of bleeding and risk of re-bleeding. We compared outcomes of patients receiving anti-platelets, anti-coagulants, or direct oral anti-coagulants (DOACs) who develop LGIB, as well as the effects of withholding these drugs on their course of bleeding. Methods We performed a retrospective study of 2528 consecutive adult patients with LGIB at 143 hospitals in the United Kingdom, from September through December 2015; 917 were taking anti-coagulant or anti-platelet drugs and 1218 were taking neither (unexposed). We collected data on demographic features of patients, interventions or medications, outcomes, laboratory test results, and patient readmission until patient death, discharge, or 28 days after admission (whichever came first). Re-bleeding was defined as additional transfusion requirements and/or a decrease in hematocrit ≥20% after 24 hrs of clinical stability. Multivariate regression was used to examine the relationship between drug class on presentation with LGIB and re-bleeding, mortality, and cardiovascular events. Rates of re-bleeding and cardiovascular complications in patients who had these drugs withheld were also analyzed. Results Patients receiving anti-platelets, but not those receiving warfarin (n = 232) or DOACs (n = 102), had a higher risk of in-hospital re-bleeding (monotherapy hazard ratio [HR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.13–11.28; n = 504 and dual anti-platelet therapy hazard ratio, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.56–18.54; n = 79) compared with the unexposed group. This risk was not lower in patients who received anti-platelets and had the drug withheld for fewer than 5 days, compared to those who continued the drug throughout admission (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.45–2.17) No differences were observed in risk-adjusted mortality or re-admission with further bleeding for patients receiving anti-platelets, DOACs, or warfarin. Cardiovascular events were too few to allow meaningful comparison. Conclusions In patients with LGIB, antiplatelet drugs, but not warfarin or DOACs, are associated with an increased risk of re-bleeding. Withholding anti-platelets during admission does not lead to reduction in re-bleeding.

Risk assessment is widely used in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) however no score accurately predicts all important clinical outcomes. This review discusses the performance of the Rockall score, pre-endsocopy Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score, AIMS-65 and newer scores such as Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva and CANUKA scores. The quality of external validation varies considerably for each score. There is a relative lack of risk scores available for use in lower GI bleeding (LGIB) but recent developments have focussed on the identification of low risk patients. The BLEED, NOBLADS, Strate and Sengupta scores have been developed to predict severe bleeding or death, each with varying performance. The Oakland score has been developed to identify patients at low risk of adverse outcomes who may be suitable for outpatient management. The comparative performance of the LGIB scores and Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 in the prediction of outcomes in LGIB is also discussed.

Background & Aims The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (pRS) are used in determining prognoses of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but neither predicts outcomes of patients with a high level of accuracy. A scoring system is needed to identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes and patients at low risk of harm. Methods We pooled data from 5 data sets in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia on 12,711 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The GBS and pRS were calculated for each patient. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling of data from 10,639 cases to develop the new scoring system Canada - United Kingdom - Adelaide (CANUKA). We performed area under the receiver operating characteristic analyses to test the ability of CANUKA to identify patients who died or had rebleeding within 30 days, surgical or radiologic intervention to control bleeding, need for therapeutic endoscopy, and transfusion—a poor outcome was defined as 1 or more of these outcomes. Patients at low risk of a poor outcome (safe for management as an outpatient) were identified based on lack of transfusion, rebleeding, therapeutic endoscopy, interventional radiology or surgery, or death. We validated in 2072 patients from a separate cohort compiled from 2 datasets. Results In the development data set there was no difference between GBS and pRS in identifying patients who died without 30 days of bleeding (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.62–0.72 for GBS; AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66–0.74 for pRS; P = .21). The GBS was superior to the pRS in identifying patients with rebleeding, hemostatic interventions, and transfusions. In the validation data set, CANUKA had higher accuracy than the GBS in identifying patients who died within 30 days of bleeding (AUROC, 0.77 vs 0.74; P = .047), but there was no significant difference in the accuracy of these scoring systems in identifying patients who required hemostatic intervention. The GBS more accurately identified patients who required therapeutic endoscopy (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81 for GBS; AUROC, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74–0.79 for CANUKA; P = .47). For patients classified as low-risk patients by CANUKA (score ≤1), 96.3% were safely discharged, whereas 16 patients with a GBS ≤1 had an adverse outcome (a 95.3% probability of safe discharge). Conclusions In an international validation analysis of the GBS and pRS for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we found the GBS to more accurately identify those who later required hemostatic interventions and transfusions; the scoring systems identified 30-day mortality or rebleeding with equal levels of accuracy. We developed a scoring system (CANUKA) that had similar performance to the GBS in predicting patient outcomes and it more accurately identifies patients at low risk for adverse outcomes.

Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for emergency hospital admission, although there is paucity of data on presentations, interventions and outcomes. In this nationwide UK audit, we describe patient characteristics, interventions including endoscopy, radiology and surgery as well as clinical outcomes.Multicentre audit of adults presenting with LGIB to UK hospitals over 2 months in 2015. Consecutive cases were prospectively enrolled by clinical teams and followed for 28 days.Data on 2528 cases of LGIB were provided by 143 hospitals. Most were elderly (median age 74 years) with major comorbidities, 29.4% taking antiplatelets and 15.9% anticoagulants. Shock was uncommon (58/2528, 2.3%), but 666 (26.3%) received a red cell transfusion. Flexible sigmoidoscopy was the most common investigation (21.5%) but only 2.1% received endoscopic haemostasis. Use of embolisation or surgery was rare, used in 19 (0.8%) and 6 (0.2%) cases, respectively. 48% patients underwent no inpatient investigations. The most common diagnoses were diverticular bleeding (26.4%) and benign anorectal conditions (16.7%). Median length of stay was 3 days, 13.6% patients rebled during admission and 4.4% were readmitted with bleeding within 28 days. In-hospital mortality was 85/2528 (3.4%) and was highest in established inpatients (17.8%, p0.0001) and in patients experiencing rebleeding (7.1%, p0.0001).Patients with LGIB have a high burden of comorbidity and frequent antiplatelet or anticoagulant use. Red cell transfusion was common but most patients were not shocked and required no endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatment. Nearly half were not investigated. In-hospital mortality was related to comorbidity, not severe haemorrhage.