Search

Background and Aim: The diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to malignancy can be challenging. Endoscopy is the gold standard to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding but clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with malignancy‐related bleeding are not well understood. This study aims to look at clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for GI malignancy‐related bleeding. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with confirmed GI malignancies who underwent endoscopy for GI bleeding at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Cox hazard analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with survival. Results: A total of 313 patients were included, with median age of 59 years; 74.8% were male. The stomach (30.0%) was the most common tumor location. Active bleeding was evident endoscopically in 47.3% of patients. Most patients (77.3%) did not receive endoscopic treatment. Of the patients who received endoscopic treatment, 57.7% had hemostasis. No endoscopy‐related adverse events were recorded. Endoscopic treatment was associated with hemostasis (P < 0.001), but not decreased recurrent bleeding or mortality. Absence of active bleeding on endoscopy, stable hemodynamic status at presentation, lower cancer stage, and surgical intervention were associated with improved survival. Conclusions: This study indicates that endoscopy is a safe diagnostic tool in this patient population; while endoscopic treatments may help achieve hemostasis, it may not decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding or improve survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a set of chronic inflammatory diseases associated with significant morbidity. Generally, IBD patients have twice the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to healthy controls. VTE in IBD is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. This is compounded by the underutilization of pharmacological anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with IBD. One study showed that half the IBD patients who developed VTE were not receiving any thrombotic prophylaxis. Method We carried out a retrospective chart review of VTE prophylaxis use and safety in patients admitted with IBD flare-up between 2014 and 2017. Results We evaluated 233 patients (mean age 36.7 years; 53.6% male). Of these patients, 55.2% were Caucasian and 40.5% were African American; 72.5% had Crohn's disease and 21% ulcerative colitis. About one-third of our patients were on chronic steroids. Pharmacological prophylaxis was used in 39.7% of the patients. This significantly correlated with male sex, recent surgery, history of VTE, smoking, and chronic steroid use. Meanwhile, hematochezia, aspirin use, and a history of gastrointestinal bleeding were correlated with less use of pharmacological prophylaxis. Patients receiving pharmacological prophylaxis showed no difference in the incidence of bleeding events. Conclusions Multiple factors were associated with the use of pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, including sex, steroid use, history of VTE events or gastrointestinal bleeding, and hematochezia. The incidence of major bleeding was not significantly greater in IBD patients receiving pharmacological prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]