Search

Objective: The ABC risk score identifies patients at high risk of mortality in acute lower and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to externally validate the ABC score while comparing it to other prognostication scales when assessing UGIB patients at high risk of negative outcomes before endoscopy., Methods: UGIB patients from a national Canadian registry (REASON) were studied, with mortality prediction as a primary outcome. Secondary endpoints included prognostication of rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU and hospitalization lengths of stay (LOS), and a previously proposed composite outcome measure. Univariable and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses compared discriminatory abilities of the ABC score to the AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford Scale (GBS), and clinical Rockall score., Results: The REASON registry included 2020 patients [89.4% nonvariceal; mean age (±SD): 66.3±16.4 y; 38.4% female]. Overall mortality, rebleeding, ICU admission, transfusion and composite score rates were 9.9%, 11.4%, 21.1%, 69.0%, and 67.3%, respectively. ICU and hospitalization LOS were 5.4±9.3 and 9.1±11.5 days, respectively. The ABC score displayed superior 30-day mortality prediction [0.78 (0.73; 0.83)] compared with GBS [0.69 (0.63; 0.75)] or clinical Rockall [0.64 (0.58; 0.70)] but not AIMS65 [0.73 (0.67; 0.79)]. Although most scales significantly prognosticated secondary outcomes in the univariable analysis except for ICU LOS, discriminatory abilities on areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were poor., Conclusions: ABC and AIMS65 display similar good prediction of mortality. Clinical usefulness in prognosticating secondary outcomes was modest for all scales, limiting their adoptions when informing early management of high-risk UGIB patients., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial., Aim: To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB., Methods: A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated., Results: Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days)., Conclusion: In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Description: This 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., Methods: An 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., Recommendations: Preendoscopic 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 proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Background: Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) require an early, tailored approach best guided by knowledge of the bleeding lesion, especially a variceal versus a nonvariceal source., Objective: To identify, by investigating a large national registry, variables that would be predictive of a variceal origin of UGIB using clinical parameters before endoscopic evaluation., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in 21 Canadian hospitals during the period from January 2004 until the end of May 2005. Consecutive charts for hospitalized patients with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of UGIB were reviewed. Data regarding demographics, including historical, physical examination, initial laboratory investigations, endoscopic and pharmacological therapies administered, as well as clinical outcomes, were collected. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was performed to identify clinical predictors of a variceal source of bleeding., Results: The patient population included 2020 patients (mean [± SD] age 66.3±16.4 years; 38.4% female). Overall, 215 (10.6%) were found to be bleeding from upper gastrointestinal varices. Among 26 patient characteristics, variables predicting a variceal source of bleeding included history of liver disease (OR 6.36 [95% CI 3.59 to 11.3]), excessive alcohol use (OR 2.28 [95% CI 1.37 to 3.77]), hematemesis (OR 2.65 [95% CI 1.61 to 4.36]), hematochezia (OR 3.02 [95% CI 1.46 to 6.22]) and stigmata of chronic liver disease (OR 2.49 [95% CI 1.46 to 4.25]). Patients treated with antithrombotic therapy were more likely to experience other causes of hemorrhage (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.78])., Conclusion: Presenting historical and physical examination data, and initial laboratory tests carry significant predictive ability in discriminating variceal versus nonvariceal sources of bleeding.

The present article describes three difficult cases of recurrent bleeding from obscure causes, followed by a review of the pitfalls and pharmacological management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. All three patients underwent multiple investigations. An intervening complicating diagnosis or antiplatelet drugs may have compounded longterm bleeding in two of the cases. A bleeding angiodysplasia was confirmed in one case but was aggravated by the need for anticoagulation. After multiple transfusions and several attempts at endoscopic management in some cases, long-acting octreotide was associated with decreased transfusion requirements and increased hemoglobin levels in all three cases, although other factors may have contributed in some. In the third case, however, the addition of low-dose thalidomide stopped bleeding for a period of at least 23 months.