Potential role for emergency physicians with endoscopy training in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a retrospective observational study

Abstract

AimUrgent endoscopy is essential in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Emergency physicians with endoscopy training treat patients with GI bleeding in our hospital. We compared the management and clinical outcomes of GI bleeding cases between those treated by an emergency physician (EP) and those treated by a non‐emergency physician (NEP; e.g., gastroenterologist or general surgeon).MethodsWe undertook a retrospective chart review of upper GI bleeding cases treated using endoscopy in the emergency department between 2012 and 2014. We examined patients characteristics, endoscopic findings, hemostatic procedures, need for transfusion, rebleeding and adverse events, length of hospital stay, and mortality.ResultsThe EP group included 33 patients (39%) and the NEP group included 51 (61%). Patient characteristics and diseases did not differ between the groups. The EP group underwent urgent endoscopy more often (100% versus 86%, P = 0.04). Procedure times were not statistically different between the groups. The EP group had fewer hemostatic procedures (42% versus 65%, P = 0.04). Transfusion requirements were lower in the EP group (0.5 U versus 2.1 U, P = 0.006). There were no statistical differences in rebleeding and adverse events. The length of hospital stay was shorter (8 versus 11 days, P = 0.03) and the in‐hospital mortality rate was lower in the EP group (0% versus 13.7%, P = 0.04).ConclusionShort‐term outcomes in GI bleeding cases managed by emergency physicians with endoscopy training were comparable to those by gastroenterologists and general surgeons. However, the extent of endoscopic training and experience emergency physicians should have remains unclear.