Search

Clinical prediction models, or risk scores, can be used to risk stratify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), although the most discriminative score is unknown.To identify all LGIB risk scores available and compare their prognostic performance.A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through August 31, 2021, was conducted. Non-English-language articles were excluded.Observational and interventional studies deriving or validating an LGIB risk score for the prediction of a clinical outcome were included. Studies including patients younger than 16 years or limited to a specific patient population or a specific cause of bleeding were excluded. Two investigators independently screened the studies, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.Data were abstracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline independently by 2 investigators and pooled using random-effects models.Summary diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) determined a priori were calculated for each risk score and outcome combination.A total of 3268 citations were identified, of which 9 studies encompassing 12 independent cohorts and 4 risk scores (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, no diarrhea, no abdominal tenderness, blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, antiplatelet drug use (nonaspirin), albumin3.0 g/dL, disease score ≥2 (according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and syncope], and BLEED [ongoing bleeding, low systolic blood pressure, elevated prothrombin time, erratic mental status, and unstable comorbid disease]) were included in the meta-analysis. For the prediction of safe discharge, the AUROC for the Oakland score was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). For major bleeding, the AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) for the Oakland score, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the Strate score, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62) for the NOBLADS score, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for the BLEED score. For transfusion, the AUROC was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) for the Oakland score and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for the NOBLADS score. For hemostasis, the AUROC was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.32-0.40) for the Oakland score, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) for the Strate score, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.20-0.28) for the NOBLADS score.The Oakland score was the most discriminative LGIB risk score for predicting safe discharge, major bleeding, and need for transfusion, whereas the Strate score was best for predicting need for hemostasis. This study suggests that these scores can be used to predict outcomes from LGIB and guide clinical care accordingly.

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.

Background Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for emergency hospitalization. In most patients, bleeding resolves spontaneously but some cases can be fatal. Risk prediction scores can be useful in risk stratifying patients with LGIB at the time of presentation although the most discriminative LGIB risk score is unknown. Aims To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LGIB risk prediction scores. Methods Following the PRISMA statement, a systematic search for relevant publications after 1990 was conducted in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL electronic databases. We also searched published conference abstracts over the past 5 years. Studies with a primary aim of deriving or validating a LGIB risk score were included. Title and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers followed by full text review and data extraction by both reviewers. Diagnostic classification data for combinations of risk score and clinical outcome were meta-analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) model, allowing for random-effects by study, and fixed-effect of the risk score thresholds to influence both sensitivity and specificity. Area under the summary ROC were estimated from model parameters for the pre-specified LGIB risk score thresholds-of-interest. Results Our search identified 2,331 citations for review, of which 100 remained after the title and abstract screen, and 18 ultimately met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis after full text review. From these, we identified 21 risk prediction scores for LGIB, although only four had sufficient number of papers to meta-analyze (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS, and BLEED score). For the outcome safe discharge from hospital, the Oakland score had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 85.5% (95% CI: 82.1%, 88.3%). For the outcome major bleeding, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 78.9% (95% CI: 75.1%, 82.2%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 74.4% (95% CI: 70.4%, 78.0%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 60.3% (95% CI: 55.9%, 64.5%); and the BLEED score had an AUROC of 65.6% (95% CI: 61.4%, 69.7%). For the outcome, need for hemostasis, the Oakland had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 82.1% (95% CI: 78.5%, 85.2%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 23.9% (95% CI: 20.3%, 27.8%). For the outcome, need for transfusion, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 87.7% (95% CI: 84.5%, 90.3%). Conclusions The Oakland score was the most discriminative risk prediction model for safe discharge from hospital, major bleeding, need for hemostasis, and need for transfusion. Funding Agencies None

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.

Background Assessing risk of post-surgical mortality is a key component of pre-surgical planning. The Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) uses pre-operative variables to predict 30-day mortality. The aim of this study was to externally validate SORT in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods Data were collected from patients treated in five Independent hospitals in the United Kingdom. Individualised SORT scores were calculated and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and precision-recall curves (PRC) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were drawn to test the ability of SORT to identify in-hospital death. Outcomes of patients with a SORT predicted risk of mortality of ≥5% (high risk) were compared to those with a predicted risk of Results The study population comprised 3305 patients, mean age 51 years, 2783 (84.2%) underwent elective surgery most frequently involving the colon (24.6%), or liver, pancreas or gallbladder (18.2%). Overall 1551 (46.9%) patients were admitted to ICU and 29 (0.88%) died. The AUROC of SORT for discriminating patients at risk of death in hospital was 0.899 (95% CI 0.849 to 0.949) and the PRC 0.247. In total 72 (2.18%) patients were stratified as high risk. There were more unplanned ICU admissions and deaths in this group compared to the standard risk group (25.0% and 3.3%, versus 3.1% and 0.5%, respectively). Conclusion We externally validated SORT in a large population of abdominal surgery patients. SORT performed well in patients with lower risk profiles, but underpredicted adverse outcomes in the higher risk group.

Background Assessing the risk of post-surgical mortality is a key component of pre-surgical planning. The Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) uses pre-operative variables to predict 30-day mortality. The aim of this study was to externally validate SORT in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods Data were collected from patients treated in five independent hospitals in the UK. Individualised SORT scores were calculated, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and precision-recall curves (PRC) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were drawn to test the ability of SORT to identify in-hospital death. Outcomes of patients with a SORT predicted risk of mortality of ≥ 5% (high risk) were compared to those with a predicted risk of < 5% (standard risk). Results The study population comprised 3305 patients, mean age 51 years, 2783 (84.2%) underwent elective surgery most frequently involving the colon (24.6%), or liver, pancreas or gallbladder (18.2%). Overall, 1551 (46.9%) patients were admitted to ICU and 29 (0.88%) died. The AUROC of SORT for discriminating patients at risk of death in hospital was 0.899 (95% CI 0.849 to 0.949) and the PRC 0.247. In total, 72 (2.18%) patients were stratified as high risk. There were more unplanned ICU admissions and deaths in this group compared to the standard risk group (25.0% and 3.3%, versus 3.1% and 0.5%, respectively). Conclusion We externally validated SORT in a large population of abdominal surgery patients. SORT performed well in patients with lower risk profiles, but underpredicted adverse outcomes in the higher risk group.

Key Points Question Is the Oakland Score a valid tool for assessing the risk of adverse outcomes among a large population of adult patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the United States? Findings In this prognostic study of 38 067 adult patients who were hospitalized with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, the Oakland Score consistently identified patients who were at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes. Extension of the Oakland Score threshold from 8 points or lower to 10 points or lower for assessing whether a patient can safely be discharged from the hospital could detect more patients who have a low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes and potentially avoid hospitalization in 17.8% of patients whose conditions could safely be managed on an outpatient basis. Meaning The findings of this study suggest that adoption of the Oakland Score into the triage process for patients presenting to hospitals in the US could reduce the rate of hospitalization among patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding., Importance Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), which manifests as blood in the colon or anorectum, is a common reason for hospitalization. In most patients, LGIB stops spontaneously with no in-hospital intervention. A risk score that could identify patients at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes could help improve the triage process and allow greater numbers of patients to receive outpatient management of LGIB. Objective To externally validate the Oakland Score, which was previously developed using a score threshold of 8 points to identify patients with LGIB who are at low risk of adverse outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter prognostic study was conducted in 140 US hospitals in the Hospital Corporation of America network. A total of 46 179 adult patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of LGIB between June 1, 2016, and October 15, 2018, were initially identified using diagnostic codes. Of those, 51 patients were excluded because they were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding, leaving a study population of 46 128 patients with LGIB. For the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, an additional 8061 patients were excluded because they were missing data on Oakland Score components or clinical outcomes, resulting in 38 067 patients included in the analysis. The study used area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 95% CIs for external validation of the model. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each score threshold (≤8 points, ≤9 points, and ≤10 points). Data were analyzed from October 16, 2018, to September 4, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Identification of patients who met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital and comparison of the performance of 2 score thresholds (≤8 points vs ≤10 points). Safe discharge was defined as the absence of blood transfusion, rebleeding, hemostatic intervention, hospital readmission, and death. Results Among 46 128 adult patients with LGIB, the mean (SD) age was 70.1 (16.5) years; 23 091 patients (50.1%) were female. Of those, 22 074 patients (47.9%) met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital. In this group, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (18.1) years, and 11 056 patients (50.1%) were female. In the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, which included only the 38 067 patients with complete data, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for safe discharge was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.87-0.87). An Oakland Score threshold of 8 points or lower identified 3305 patients (8.7%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 98.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Extension of the Oakland Score threshold to 10 points or lower identified 6770 patients (17.8%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 96.0% and 31.9%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, the Oakland Score consistently identified patients with acute LGIB who were at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes and whose conditions could safely be managed without hospitalization. The score threshold to identify low-risk patients could be extended from 8 points or lower to 10 points or lower to allow identification of a greater proportion of low-risk patients., This prognostic study evaluates the external validity of the Oakland Score for use in assessing the risk of adverse outcomes and the likelihood of safe hospital discharge among a large population of adult patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the United States.

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.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical and surgical emergency and is the second most common indication for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in the UK. Most transfusion guidelines recommend the use of restrictive blood transfusion in stable gastrointestinal bleeding. This review explores the evidence supporting this practice, including whether it is safe in lower as well as upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and the risks of restrictive transfusion in patients with cardiovascular disease. There is a lack of evidence supporting the use of platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusion in gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this review is to serve as a practical guide to transfusion in stable gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.

10% of patients who undergo a cholecystectomy go on to develop post-cholecystectomy syndrome (PCS). The majority of these patients may suffer from extra-biliary or unrelated organic disorders that may have been present before cholecystectomy. The numerous aetiological causes of PCS result in a wide spectrum of management options, each with varying success in abating symptoms. This systematic review aims to provide a summary of the causative aetiologies of post cholecystectomy syndrome, their incidences and efficacy of available management options.The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for studies patients who developed PCS symptoms following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, published between 1990 and 2016. The aetiology, incidence and management options were extracted, with separate collation of randomised control trials and non-randomised studies that reported intervention. Outcomes included recurrent symptoms following intervention, unscheduled primary and secondary care attendances and complications.Twenty-one studies were included (15 case series, 2 cohort studies, 1 case control, 3 RCTs). Five studies described medical treatment (nifedipine, cisapride, opiates); seven studies described endoscopic or surgical intervention. Early presentation of PCS (3 years post-cholecystectomy) was more likely to be gastric in origin, and later presentations were found to be more likely due to retained stones. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) accounted for a third of cases in an unselected population with PCS.Causes of post cholecystectomy syndrome are varied and many can be attributed to extra-biliary causes, which may be present prior to surgery. Early symptoms may warrant early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Delayed presentations are more likely to be associated with retained biliary stones. A large proportion of patients will have no cause identified. Treatment options for this latter group are limited.

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.

Background and study aims Investigations for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) include flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), and angiography. All may be used to direct endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatment, although their optimal use is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic yields of endoscopy, CTA, and angiography for managing LGIB, and their influence on rebleeding, transfusion, and hospital stay. Patients and methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) published between 2000 and 12 November 2015 in patients hospitalized with LGIB. Separate meta-analyses were conducted, presented as pooled odds (ORs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results Two RCTs and 13 NRSIs were included, none of which examined flexible sigmoidoscopy, or compared endotherapy with embolization, or investigated the timing of CTA or angiography. Two NRSIs (57 – 223 participants) comparing colonoscopy and CTA were of insufficient quality for synthesis but showed no difference in diagnostic yields between the two interventions. One RCT and 4 NRSIs (779 participants) compared early colonoscopy ( Conclusions In LGIB there is a paucity of high-quality evidence, although the limited studies on the timing of colonoscopy suggest increased rates of diagnosis and therapy with early colonoscopy.

Background Blood transfusion is administered during many types of surgery, but its efficacy and safety are increasingly questioned. Evaluation of the efficacy of agents, such as desmopressin (DDAVP; 1-deamino-8-D-arginine-vasopressin), that may reduce perioperative blood loss is needed. Objectives To examine the evidence for the efficacy of DDAVP in reducing perioperative blood loss and the need for red cell transfusion in people who do not have inherited bleeding disorders. Search methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases (all searches to 3 April 2017). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing DDAVP to placebo or an active comparator (e.g. tranexamic acid, aprotinin) before, during, or immediately after surgery or after invasive procedures in adults or children. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We identified 65 completed trials (3874 participants) and four ongoing trials. Of the 65 completed trials, 39 focused on adult cardiac surgery, three on paediatric cardiac surgery, 12 on orthopaedic surgery, two on plastic surgery, and two on vascular surgery; seven studies were conducted in surgery for other conditions. These trials were conducted between 1986 and 2016, and 11 were funded by pharmaceutical companies or by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial. The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate across all outcomes. No trial reported quality of life. DDAVP versus placebo or no treatment Trial results showed considerable heterogeneity between surgical settings for total volume of red cells transfused (low-quality evidence) and for total blood loss (very low-quality evidence) due to large differences in baseline blood loss. Consequently, these outcomes were not pooled and were reported in subgroups. Compared with placebo, DDAVP may slightly decrease the total volume of red cells transfused in adult cardiac surgery (mean difference (MD) -0.52 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.08 units; 14 trials, 957 participants), but may lead to little or no difference in orthopaedic surgery (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.64 units; 6 trials, 303 participants), vascular surgery (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.73 units; 2 trials, 135 participants), or hepatic surgery (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.33 units; 1 trial, 59 participants). DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants transfused with blood (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 25 trials; 1806 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Whether DDAVP decreases total blood loss in adult cardiac surgery (MD -135.24 mL, 95% CI -210.80 mL to -59.68 mL; 22 trials, 1358 participants), orthopaedic surgery (MD -285.76 mL, 95% CI -514.99 mL to -56.53 mL; 5 trials, 241 participants), or vascular surgery (MD -582.00 mL, 95% CI -1264.07 mL to 100.07 mL; 1 trial, 44 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (pOR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.34; 22 trials, 1631 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.16; 29 trials, 1984 participants) (both low-quality evidence). DDAVP versus placebo or no treatment for people with platelet dysfunction Compared with placebo, DDAVP may lead to a reduction in the total volume of red cells transfused (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units; 6 trials, 388 participants) (low-quality evidence) and in total blood loss (MD -253.93 mL, 95% CI -408.01 mL to -99.85 mL; 7 trials, 422 participants) (low-quality evidence). DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; 5 trials, 258 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in all-cause mortality (pOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.22; 7 trials; 422 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; 7 trials, 422 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. DDAVP versus tranexamic acid Compared with tranexamic acid, DDAVP may increase the volume of blood transfused (MD 0.6 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.11 units; 1 trial, 40 participants) and total blood loss (MD 142.81 mL, 95% CI 79.78 mL to 205.84 mL; 2 trials, 115 participants) (both low-quality evidence). Whether DDAVP increases or decreases the total number of participants transfused with blood is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.64; 3 trials, 135 participants). No trial reported all-cause mortality. Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 2.92, 95% CI 0.32 to 26.83; 2 trials, 115 participants). DDAVP versus aprotinin Compared with aprotinin, DDAVP probably increases the total number of participants transfused with blood (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.02; 1 trial, 99 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). No trials reported volume of blood transfused or total blood loss and the single trial that included mortality as an outcome reported no deaths. Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; 2 trials, 152 participants). Authors' conclusions Most of the evidence derived by comparing DDAVP versus placebo was obtained in cardiac surgery, where DDAVP was administered after cardiopulmonary bypass. In adults undergoing cardiac surgery, the reduction in volume of red cells transfused and total blood loss was small and was unlikely to be clinically important. It is less clear whether DDAVP may be of benefit for children and for those undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A key area for researchers is examining the effects of DDAVP for people with platelet dysfunction. Few trials have compared DDAVP versus tranexamic acid or aprotinin; consequently, we are uncertain of the relative efficacy of these interventions.

Essentials The optimal management of patients with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery is unclear. This meta-analysis compared perioperative administration of desmopressin to placebo. Desmopressin reduced red cell transfusions, blood loss and risk of re-operation due to bleeding. There were too few events to determine if there was a change in the risk of thrombotic events. SummaryBackground Platelet dysfunction, including that caused by antiplatelet agents, increases the risk of perioperative bleeding. The optimal management of patients with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery is unclear. Objectives To assess whether desmopressin reduces perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion and bleeding in patients with platelet dysfunction. Patients/Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Transfusion Evidence Library and the ISI Web of Science to 7th July 2016. Data were pooled using mean difference (MD), relative risks or Peto odds ratios (pOR) using a random-effects model. Results Ten trials with 596 participants were identified, all in the setting of cardiac surgery. Platelet dysfunction was due to antiplatelet agents in six trials and cardiopulmonary bypass in four trials. Patients treated with desmopressin were transfused with fewer red cells (MD, −0.65 units; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], −1.16 to −0.13 units), lost less blood (MD, −253.93 mL; 95% CI, −408.01 to −99.85 mL) and had a lower risk of re-operation due to bleeding (pOR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18–0.84). The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate, suggesting considerable uncertainty over the results Conclusions Desmopressin may be a useful agent to reduce bleeding and transfusion requirements for people with platelet dysfunction or with a history of recent antiplatelet drug administration undergoing cardiac surgery.

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.

Introduction Frailty is becoming increasingly prevalent in the elderly population although a lack of consensus regarding a clinical definition hampers comparison of clinical studies. More elderly patients are being assessed for surgical intervention but the effect of frailty on surgical related outcomes is still not clear. Methods A systematic literature search for studies prospectively reporting frailty and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgical intervention was performed with data collated from a total of 12 studies. Random effects meta-analysis modelling was undertaken to estimate the association between frailty and mortality rates (in-hospital and one-year), length of hospital stay and the need for step-down care for further rehabilitation/nursing home placement. Results Frailty was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate (pooled odds ratio [OR]: 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62–4.73), a higher one-year mortality rate (pooled OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.49–2.66), a longer hospital stay (pooled mean difference: 1.05 days, 95% CI: 0.02–2.07 days) and a higher discharge rate to further rehabilitation/step-down care (pooled OR: 5.71, 95% CI: 3.41–9.55). Conclusions The presence of frailty in patients undergoing surgical intervention is associated with poorer outcomes with regard to mortality and return to independence. Further in-depth studies are required to identify factors that can be optimised to reduce the burden of frailty in surgical patients.

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.

Background Equestrian sports are common outdoor activities that may carry a risk of liver injury. Due to the relative infrequency of equestrian accidents the injury patterns and outcomes associated with liver trauma in these patients have not been well characterized. Methods We examined our experience of the management of equestrian liver trauma in our regional hepatopancreaticobiliary unit at a tertiary referral center. The medical records of patients who sustained liver trauma secondary to equestrian activities were analysed for parameters such as demographic data, liver function tests, patterns of injury, radiological findings, the need for intervention and outcomes. Results 20 patients sustained liver trauma after falling from or being kicked by a horse. The majority of patients were haemodynamically stable on admission. Alanine transaminase (ALT) levels were elevated in all patients and right-sided rib fractures were a frequently associated finding. CT demonstrated laceration of the liver in 12 patients, contusion in 3 and subcapsular haematoma in 2. The right lobe of the liver was most commonly affected. Only two patients required laparotomy and liver resection; the remaining 18 were successfully managed conservatively. Conclusions The risk of liver injury following a horse kick or falling off a horse should not be overlooked. Early CT imaging is advised in these patients, particularly in the presence of high ALT levels and concomitant chest injuries such as rib fractures. Despite significant liver trauma, conservative management in the form of close observation, ideally in a high-dependency setting, is often sufficient. Laparotomy is only rarely warranted and associated with a significantly higher risk of post-operative bile leaks.

INTRODUCTION: Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common indication for emergency hospitalisation worldwide. In contrast to upper GIB, patient characteristics, modes of investigation, transfusion, treatment and outcomes are poorly described. There are minimal clinical guidelines to inform care pathways and the use of endoscopy, including (diagnostic and therapeutic yields), interventional radiology and surgery are poorly defined. As a result, there is potential for wide variation in practice and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The UK Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding Audit is a large nationwide audit of adult patients acutely admitted with LGIB or those who develop LGIB while hospitalised for another reason. Consecutive, unselected presentations with LGIB will be enrolled prospectively over a 2-month period at the end of 2015 and detailed data will be collected on patient characteristics, comorbidities, use of anticoagulants, transfusion, timing and modalities of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, clinical outcome, length of stay and mortality. These will be audited against predefined minimum standards of care for LGIB. It is anticipated that over 80% of all acute hospitals in England and some hospitals in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will participate. Data will be collected on the availability and organisation of care, provision of diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopy, interventional radiology, surgery and transfusion protocols. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This audit will be conducted as part of the national comparative audit programme of blood transfusion through collaboration with specialists in gastroenterology, surgery and interventional radiology. Individual reports will be provided to each participant site as well as an overall report and disseminated through specialist societies. Results will also be published in peer-reviewed journals. The study has been funded by National Health Services (NHS) Blood and Transplant and the Bowel Disease Research Foundation and endorsed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Background Arterial calcification on Computerised Tomography (CT) is a marker of cardiovascular disease. It is predictive of future adverse cardiac events and mortality in many disease states. The incidence of arterial disease and its impact on outcomes of the injured is not known. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence of arterial calcification in trauma patients, and establish its impact on mortality. Methods A retrospective cohort study of all injured patients aged over 45 years presenting to a major trauma centre over a 34-month period. The presence and quantity of coronary, aortic and abdominal arterial calcification on admission CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis was established, and the association between cardiovascular disease and in-hospital mortality following trauma was determined. Results Five hundred ninety-one patients were included in the study. Cardiac calcium was visible on 432 (73 %) scans, and abdominal arterial calcification on 472 (79.9 %). Fifty (8.5 %) patients died. Patients with Superior Mesenteric (SMA) and Common Iliac Artery calcification had a significantly higher mortality than those without (p