Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of endoscopy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding in real clinical practice: An evidence-based review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding is usually segregated from lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and guidelines for gastrointestinal bleeding are divided into two separate sections, they may not be distinguished from each other in clinical practice. Most patients are first observed with signs of bleeding such as hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia. When a patient with these symptoms presents to the emergency room, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment are considered together with appropriate initial resuscitation. Especially, in cases of variceal bleeding, it is important for the prognosis that the endoscopy is performed immediately after the patient stabilizes. In cases of suspected lower gastrointestinal bleeding, full colonoscopy after bowel preparation is effective in distinguishing the cause of the bleeding and treating with hemostasis. The therapeutic aspect of endoscopy, using the mechanical method alone or injection with a certain modality rather than injection alone, can increase the success rate of bleeding control. Therefore, it is important to consider the origin of bleeding and how to approach it. In this article, we aim to review the role of endoscopy in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding in a real clinical setting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references108

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

          The aim of this study was to establish the relative importance of risk factors for mortality after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and to formulate a simple numerical scoring system that categorizes patients by risk. A prospective, unselected, multicentre, population based study was undertaken using standardised questionnaires in two phases one year apart. A total of 4185 cases of acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage over the age of 16 identified over a four month period in 1993 and 1625 cases identified subsequently over a three month period in 1994 were included in the study. It was found that age, shock, comorbidity, diagnosis, major stigmata of recent haemorrhage, and rebleeding are all independent predictors of mortality when assessed using multiple logistic regression. A numerical score using these parameters has been developed that closely follows the predictions generated by logistical regression equations. Haemoglobin, sex, presentation (other than shock), and drug therapy (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anticoagulants) are not represented in the final model. When tested for general applicability in a second population, the scoring system was found to reproducibly predict mortality in each risk category. In conclusion, a simple numerical score can be used to categorize patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage by risk of death. This score can be used to determine case mix when comparing outcomes in audit and research and to calculate risk standardised mortality. In addition, this risk score can identify 15% of all cases with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage at the time of presentation and 26% of cases after endoscopy who are at low risk of rebleeding and negligible risk of death and who might therefore be considered for early discharge or outpatient treatment with consequent resource savings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

            This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding.

              Although the early use of a risk stratification score in upper GI bleeding is recommended, existing risk scores are not widely used in clinical practice. We sought to develop and validate an easily calculated bedside risk score, AIMS65, by using data routinely available at initial evaluation. Data from patients admitted from the emergency department with acute upper GI bleeding were extracted from a database containing information from 187 U.S. hospitals. Recursive partitioning was applied to derive a risk score for in-hospital mortality by using data from 2004 to 2005 in 29,222 patients. The score was validated by using data from 2006 to 2007 in 32,504 patients. Accuracy to predict mortality was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost of admission. The 5 factors present at admission with the best discrimination were albumin less than 3.0 g/dL, international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or lower, and age older than 65 years. For those with no risk factors, the mortality rate was 0.3% compared with 31.8% in patients with all 5 (P < .001). The model had a high predictive accuracy (AUROC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.81), which was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUROC = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.75-0.79). Longer LOS and increased costs were seen with higher scores (P < .001). Database data used does not include outcomes such as rebleeding. AIMS65 is a simple, accurate risk score that predicts in-hospital mortality, LOS, and cost in patients with acute upper GI bleeding. Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                World J Gastrointest Endosc
                WJGE
                World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
                Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
                1948-5190
                16 February 2019
                16 February 2019
                : 11
                : 2
                : 68-83
                Affiliations
                Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan 49267, South Korea
                Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan 49267, South Korea. moonone70@ 123456hanmail.net
                Author notes

                Author contributions: Moon W substantially contributed to the conception and design of the review; Jung K contributed to the acquisition of data and drafting the article.

                Corresponding author: Won Moon, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49267, South Korea. moonone70@ 123456hanmail.net

                Telephone: +82-51-9906103 Fax: +82-51-9905055

                Article
                jWJGE.v11.i2.pg68
                10.4253/wjge.v11.i2.68
                6379746
                30788026
                4c7f6074-ba0d-4615-abaf-3da30b3c7312
                ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

                This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.

                History
                : 17 December 2018
                : 2 February 2019
                : 13 February 2019
                Categories
                Review

                endoscopy,gastrointestinal bleeding,endoscopic bleeding control,emergency bowel preparation,bedside endoscopy,second-look endoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article