scholarly journals The Acute Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Ulcers ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisham AL Dhahab ◽  
Alan Barkun
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Proton Pump Inhibitors ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Acute Management ◽  
Peptic Ulcers ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Background. The mortality from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is still around 5%, despite the increased use of proton-pump inhibitors and the advancement of endoscopic therapeutic modalities. Aim. To review the state-of-the-art management of acute non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding from the presentation to the emergency department, risk stratification, endoscopic hemostasis, and postendoscopic consolidation management to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers. Methods. A PubMed search was performed using the following key words acute management, non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and bleeding peptic ulcers. Results. Risk stratifying patients with acute non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding allows the categorization into low risk versus high risk of rebleeding, subsequently safely discharging low risk patients early from the emergency department, while achieving adequate hemostasis in high-risk lesions followed by continuous proton-pump inhibitors for 72 hours. Dual endoscopic therapy still remains the recommended choice in controlling bleeding from peptic ulcers despite the emergence of new endoscopic modalities such as the hemostatic powder. Conclusion. The management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding involves adequate resuscitation, preendoscopic risk assessment, endoscopic hemostasis, and post endoscopic pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment.

scholarly journals LO25: Use of Glasgow Blatchford Score, time to endoscopy, and proton pump inhibitor use in patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding to the emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S16
Author(s):  
S. Sandha ◽  
J. Stach ◽  
M. Bullard ◽  
B. Halloran ◽  
H. Blain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Proton Pump Inhibitor ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED). Early endoscopy within 24 hours has been shown to reduce re-bleeding rates and lower mortality. However, low-risk patients can often be managed through outpatient follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare the timing and appropriateness of endoscopy and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in a tertiary care ED setting for low- and high-risk patients determined using the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS). Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted to examine the management of patients presenting with an UGIB in 2016 to the University of Alberta Hospital ED. TANDEM and Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) databases were used to identify patients using specific ICD-10 codes and the CEDIS presenting complaints of vomiting blood or blood in stool/melena. Patients with GBS 0-3 were categorized as low-risk and those with GBS > 3 were considered high-risk with appropriateness of and time to endoscopy, disposition of patient at 24 hours, and use of PPIs determined for each group. Results: A total of 400 patients were included. A total of 319/400 patients (80%) underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EGD was performed within 24 hours in 37% of patients (29/78) with GBS 0 to 3 and in 77% (248/322) with GBS greater than 3. Of the remaining high-risk patients, 11% (36/322) underwent EGD after 24 hours and 12% (38/322) did not undergo EGD. The endoscopic diagnoses were peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in 41% of patients (130/319), esophagitis in 18% (56/319), and varices in 14% (45/319). PPIs (data available 375/400) were administered (mainly intravenously) to 93% (279/300) of high-risk and 79% (59/75) of low-risk patients. Data on patient disposition showed 60/322 (19%) high-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours and only 31/60 (52%) of these underwent EGD before discharge. Of 29 low-risk patients undergoing EGD within 24 hours, 9 (31%) were admitted, 17 (59%) were discharged from ED, and 3 (10%) were kept for observation in the ED greater than 24 hours. Of low-risk patients, 76% (59/78) were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. Conclusion: A majority of patients presenting with UGIB appropriately received endoscopy within 24 hours. 19% of high-risk patients were discharged from the ED. Earlier discharge for low-risk patients can be improved as only 76% of low-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. As expected, PPI use was high in these patients.

scholarly journals Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian J Stanley ◽  
Loren Laine
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Proton Pump Inhibitors ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Variceal Bleeding ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Endoscopic Therapy ◽  
Ulcer Bleeding ◽  
Vasoactive Drugs ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Abstract Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency, with a reported mortality of 2-10%. Patients identified as being at very low risk of either needing an intervention or death can be managed as outpatients. For all other patients, intravenous fluids as needed for resuscitation and red cell transfusion at a hemoglobin threshold of 70-80 g/L are recommended. After resuscitation is initiated, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the prokinetic agent erythromycin may be administered, with antibiotics and vasoactive drugs recommended in patients who have cirrhosis. Endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 hours, with earlier endoscopy considered after resuscitation in patients at high risk, such as those with hemodynamic instability. Endoscopic treatment is used for variceal bleeding (for example, ligation for esophageal varices and tissue glue for gastric varices) and for high risk non-variceal bleeding (for example, injection, thermal probes, or clips for lesions with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel). Patients who require endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding should receive high dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopy, whereas those who have variceal bleeding should continue taking antibiotics and vasoactive drugs. Recurrent ulcer bleeding is treated with repeat endoscopic therapy, with subsequent bleeding managed by interventional radiology or surgery. Recurrent variceal bleeding is generally treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. In patients who require antithrombotic agents, outcomes appear to be better when these drugs are reintroduced early.

scholarly journals Semiautomated Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score helps direct bed placement for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000479
Author(s):  
Drew B Schembre ◽  
Robson E Ely ◽  
Janice M Connolly ◽  
Kunjali T Padhya ◽  
Rohit Sharda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Transfusion Requirement ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Bleeding Score ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

ObjectiveThe Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) was designed to identify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who do not require hospitalisation. It may also help stratify patients unlikely to benefit from intensive care.DesignWe reviewed patients assigned a GBS in the emergency room (ER) via a semiautomated calculator. Patients with a score ≤7 (low risk) were directed to an unmonitored bed (UMB), while those with a score of ≥8 (high risk) were considered for MB placement. Conformity with guidelines and subsequent transfers to MB were reviewed, along with transfusion requirement, rebleeding, length of stay, need for intervention and death.ResultsOver 34 months, 1037 patients received a GBS in the ER. 745 had an UGIB. 235 (32%) of these patients had a GBS ≤7. 29 (12%) low-risk patients were admitted to MBs. Four low-risk patients admitted to UMB required transfer to MB within the first 48 hours. Low-risk patients admitted to UMBs were no more likely to die, rebleed, need transfusion or require more endoscopic, radiographic or surgical procedures than those admitted to MBs. No low-risk patient died from GIB. Patients with GBS ≥8 were more likely to rebleed, require transfusion and interventions to control bleeding but not to die.ConclusionA semiautomated GBS calculator can be incorporated into an ER workflow. Patients with a GBS ≤7 are unlikely to need MB care for UGIB. Further studies are warranted to determine an ideal scoring system for MB admission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document