Endoscopy For Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Research Articles

Recurrent Brunneroma: A Rare Cause of Duodenal Obstruction

Abstract Brunneroma, also known as Bruner’s gland adenoma or hamartoma, is a rare benign tumor of the duodenum. It is usually asymptomatic and sometimes presents with an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed or obstruction. The majority of the cases are detected incidentally during endoscopy for UGI bleeding and may require endoscopic excision. Here, we attempt to highlight a case of recurrent large Brunneroma in a 52-year-old male and reassess the representative features that surgeons need to be aware of. We had to go for a major surgical intervention to relieve the duodenal obstruction.

Learning curve of achieving competency in emergency endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how much experience is necessary?

ObjectivesThe management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has seen rapid advancements with revolutionising innovations. However, insufficient data exist on the necessary number of emergency endoscopies needed to achieve competency in...

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Pediatrics

Introduction Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is currently considered the first-line diagnostic procedure of choice for upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding; however, the etiology of bleeding remains unknown in a subset of patients. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in pediatrics and determine the clinical predictors for unreached diagnosis during endoscopy. Methods Cross sectional study, conducted at pediatric endoscopy unit, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, where 100 patients were recruited, as they were referred for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy due to overt upper GI bleeding in the form of hematemesis and/or melena. Full medical history, examination, laboratory investigations, endoscopic and histopathologic findings were documented. Results :100 patients with ages ranging from 3 months to 15 years, median age 4 years, 47% males and 53% females, 65% presented by hematemesis only, 7% with melena only, and 28 % presented with both hematemesis and melena. In 38 % of cases no endoscopic diagnosis was reached. While patients with a positive diagnostic yield 62%, had variable diagnosis, the most common of which was H pylori gastritis and reflux oesophagitis in 23% and 11% of cases respectively. Followed by nonspecific gastritis (8%), oesophageal varices (4%), and others (16%).. Melena was a negative predictor to reach a diagnosis by upper GI endoscopy. Conclusion Diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy in pediatric patients with upper GI bleeding was only 62%. Combining upper GI endoscopy with other tools in cases presenting with melena alone is highly recommended since bleeding from a source in the small bowel or right colon may also be the cause.

Endoscopic findings are not different in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding with COVID-19

Background and Aims: Coronavirus disease-2019 is an emerging disease of global public health concern. We aimed to evaluate the demographic data, clinical properties, risk factors and endoscopy findings of coronavirus disease-2019 patients with upper gastrointestinal system bleeding. Materials and Method: Patients who underwent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding between July 2, 2020 and January 29, 2021 and were diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. In this retrospective study patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were compared as 1:2 case-control. Coronavirus disease-2019 patients who underwent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the control group were compared retrospectively in terms of demographic data, comorbid diseases, bleeding symptom, drugs administered, laboratory parameters, time between bleeding symptom and endoscopy, endoscopy findings, gastrointestinal bleeding treatment, and mortality rates. Results: Forty Covid-19 patients (23 males, mean age ± SD, 65.92 ± 12.97) and 80 non-Covid-19 control patients (43 males, mean age ± SD, 66.17 ± 15.61) who underwent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding were compared. The most common bleeding symptom was melena in both groups (50% vs 60%). Hospitalization in intensive care unit (47.5% vs 20%, P = 0.004) and need for mechanic ventilation (22.5% vs 5%, p = 0.006), use of corticosteroids were more common in coronavirus disease-2019 group (30% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.000). The need for erythrocyt replacement were not different between the groups [median (min - max) 1.5 (0 - 13) vs 0.5 (0 - 22), p = 0.397]. Use of low molecular weight heparin was statistically more common in coronavirus disease-2019 group (32.5% vs 5%, p=0.00). Time elapsed until the performance of endoscopy in terms of hours was significantly longer in coronavirus disease-2019 group (62.97 ± 84.59 vs. 21.85 ± 33.91, p = 0.006). The most common endoscopic finding was gastroduodenal ulcer in both groups. No significant differences were seen in terms of rebleeeding rates. Mortality rate was statistically higher in coronavirus disease-2019 group (37.5% vs 8.8%, p = 0.000). Conclusions: Until more precise guidelines for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19 patients are developed, a case-by-case decision should be made on whether to perform endoscopy and the timing of the procedure, after multidisciplinary assessments are made in terms of patient status, response to medical therapy, treatment resources, and assessment of risks.

Safety and Efficacy of Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background and AimThis study aimed to compare patients with and without sedation during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and to clarify the safety and efficacy of sedation in emergency endoscopy.MethodsWe retrospectively collected 389 patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB at Ureshino Medical Center from 2016 to 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: sedation group during emergency endoscopy and nonsedation group. Clinical characteristics, patient status on admission, and UGIB etiology were evaluated. Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM), and risk factors for mortality from UGIB were investigated using Cox multivariate analysis.ResultsThe sedation group was significantly younger, composed of a higher proportion of males, and had chronic liver disease. Blood pressure and hemoglobin level on admission were significantly higher in the sedation group. The main cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer, which was significantly higher in the nonsedation group. PSM created 133 matched pairs. The success rate of endoscopic hemostasis was similar in both groups, and procedure time was significantly shorter in the sedation group than in the nonsedation group (17.6 ± 10.0 versus 20.2 ± 10.2 min, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups. Cox multivariate analyses revealed that red blood cell transfusion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.45, P < 0.02] and rebleeding (HR 3.30, P = 0.03) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality from UGIB.ConclusionsSedation reduced the procedure time during emergency endoscopy for UGIB. Sedation during emergency endoscopy for UGIB is acceptable for safe endoscopic procedures.

Azithromycin versus erythromycin infusions prior to endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BackgroundIntravenous erythromycin prior to endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) improves outcomes but requires immediate preparation delaying administration in emergency cases. Azithromycin is readily available and does not require prolonged preparation. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of azithromycin in improving the quality of endoscopic visualization in upper GIB compared to erythromycin.MethodsPatients admitted with upper GIB who received erythromycin or azithromycin before urgent endoscopy were included. Primary outcome of the quality of visualization was assessed by two gastroenterologists, blinded to the choice of infusion, using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 8, with a maximum of 2 points assigned to the fundus, body, antrum and bulb.ResultsSixty-six patients were included; 25 received azithromycin and 41 received erythromycin. Mean total visualization score was significantly higher with azithromycin compared to that with erythromycin (6.8±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.2, respectively; P=0.01) and remained significant after adjusting for confounders (Diff: 0.01, 1.88; P=0.05). Secondary outcomes analyses showed a shorter LOS when given azithromycin compared to erythromycin [6 (3 to 9) vs. 8 (7 to 16) days, respectively, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.89; P=0.04]. Time between initiating the infusion and endoscopy was longer with azithromycin (Diff: 40.64 min; 95% CI: 7.23, 74.05; P=0.02). Need for second look endoscopy, procedure time, blood transfusion requirements and procedure-related complications did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsAzithromycin infusion before endoscopy for upper GIB was associated with better visualization than that of erythromycin. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Randomized controlled trial of early endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in acute coronary syndrome patients

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are not uncommon, particularly under dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The efficiency and safety of early endoscopy (EE) for UGIB in these patients needs to be elucidated. This multicenter randomized controlled trial randomized recent ACS patients presenting acute UGIB to non-EE and EE groups. All eligible patients received intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy. Those in EE group underwent therapeutic endoscopy within 24 h after bleeding. The data regarding efficacy and safety of EE were analyzed. It was early terminated because the UGIB rate was lower than expected and interim analysis was done. In total, 43 patients were randomized to non-EE (21 patients) and EE (22 patients) groups. The failure rate of control hemorrhage (intention-to-treat [ITT] 4.55% vs. 23.81%, p < 0.001; per-protocol [PP] 0% vs. 4.55%, p = 0.058) and 3-day rebleeding rate (ITT 4.55% vs. 28.57%, p = 0.033; PP 0% vs. 21.05%, p = 0.027) were lower in EE than non-EE group. The mortality, minor and major complication rates were not different between two groups. Male patients were at higher risk of minor and major complications after EE with OR (95% CI) of 3.50 (1.15–10.63) and 4.25 (1.43–12.63), respectively. In multivariate analysis, EE was associated with lower needs for blood transfusion (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.98). Among patients who discontinued DAPT during acute UGIB, a higher risk (OR 5.25, 95% CI 1.21–22.74) of coronary artery stent re-thrombosis within 6 months was noticed. EE for acute UGIB in recent ACS patients has higher rate of bleeding control, lower 3-day rebleeding rate and lower needs for blood transfusion, but more complications in male patients. Further enrollment is mandatory to avoid bias from small sample size (ClinicalTrial.gov Number NCT02618980, registration date 02/12/2015).

Endoscopic Findings in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Ogun State, Nigeria.

IntroductionAlthough the global incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) appears to have reduced substantially in the past few decades, acute UGIB still carries significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are currently no published data on UGIB in Ogun State, Nigeria. This study examined the endoscopic findings in patients with UGIB in Ogun State. MethodologyThe study was a retrospective cross-sectional survey of patients with UGIB who had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at three endoscopy centers in Ogun State, Southwest Nigeria, from January 2015 to December 2021. Patients’ data, which included age, gender, and endoscopic findings, were extracted from the endoscopy registers into a spreadsheet and analyzed statistically. Summary statistics included means ± standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Categorical variables were compared for differences by chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. The statistical significance cutoff was p-value <0.05.ResultsA total of 171 had endoscopy for UGIB during the period under review but 168 had complete data. Out of the 168, 113 (67.3%) were males, giving a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. The mean age of the patients was 52.4 ± 18.1 years, with an age range of 7-85 years. The modal age group was ≥60 years (75; 39.9%). The most common endoscopic finding was peptic ulcer disease (77; 45.8%), followed by esophagogastric varices (27; 16.1%), erosive mucosal disease (25; 14.9 %), portal hypertensive gastropathy (15; 8.9%), suspected malignancies (11; 6.6%), hemorrhagic gastritis (7; 4.2%), gastric antral vascular ectasia (2; 1.2%), and Mallory-Weiss tear (1; 0.6%), respectively. Forty-four patients (26.2%) had no lesion that could explain UGIB. ConclusionPeptic ulcer disease was the most common cause of UGIB among our patient population, and the elderly male patients were the most affected.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding. At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis. There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a tertiary hospital in Kaduna, North-West Nigeria: Experience and findings.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) makes diagnosis and treatment possible; performing this procedure within 24 h of bleeding is considered the standard of care for managing this condition. Access to upper endoscopy improves the prognosis of the disease. We present our experience and findings of performing UGIE in patients referred for UGIB to a new endoscopy unit in a tertiary center in North-West Nigeria. The age, gender, reasons for referral, interval between endoscopy, and last known episode of bleeding and endoscopic findings were obtained from endoscopy records. We performed UGIE in 204 patients for UGIB over a 7-year period: Mean age 45.5 years (range 10-88 years), 61.8% male, 54.8% <50 years. Most patients (81.3%) had endoscopy seven or more days after the last known episode of bleeding and none had endoscopy within 24 h. Esophageal and gastric varices were found in almost 30% of patients while peptic ulcer disease was found in 23%. Portal hypertensive gastropathy was found in 12.7% of patients all of whom also had esophageal or gastric varices. Gastric mucosal erosions (7.4%) and gastric malignancy (6.4%) were other notable findings. No significant abnormalities were detected in 11.8% of patients. Bleeding from esophageal/gastric varices and peptic ulcer disease were the most common finding in our patients. There was delay in performing endoscopy and improving access and training for endoscopy will go a long way in addressing some of the challenges we identified.

COVID-19 Pandemisinde Acil Servise Başvuran Üst Gastrointestinal Kanamalı Hastaların Sayısı Azaldı mı?: Tek Merkez Deneyimi

Objective: In the period of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was either postponed or canceled, except for emergencies, due to the high risk of transmission. Our study aimed to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding presenting to the emergency department and to compare it with the data before the pandemic. Material and Methods: In this single-center, retrospective study, patients were divided into 2 groups: pre-COVID-19 (pre-C) (March 2019-March 2020) and post-COVID-19 (post-C) (March 2020- March 2021). Patients who presented to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding during these periods and underwent endoscopic examination were included in the study. Results: Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding was urgently performed in 125 patients in the pre-C period and in 89 (29% decrease) patients in the post- C period. The Glasgow-Blatchford Score was higher in the pre-C period (p=0.02). Peptic ulcers were the most common cause of bleeding in both groups. High-risk peptic ulcer (forrest 1a/1b/2a/2b), and malignancy were observed more frequently in the post-C period (p=0.003, p=0.04; respectively). Endoscopic combined treatment rate was higher in the post-C group (p<0.001). Re-bleeding ratios were similar for both the groups (p=0.48). Conclusion: During the post-C period, the number of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases admitted to the emergency department decreased significantly. However, the rate of high-risk peptic ulcer and malignancy in the etiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding increased in the post-C period.

Increasing the low-risk threshold for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective, multicentre feasibility study

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we extended the low-risk threshold for patients not requiring inpatient endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) 0–1 to GBS 0–3. We...

How Can Patient’s Risk Dictate the Timing of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

Introduction: Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) management has improved substantially in the last decades, there is still much controversy regarding the optimal timing for performance of endoscopy. Recent guidelines suggest performing an early endoscopy within 24 h of nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) presentation, although its impact on patients with different bleeding risks remains unclear. Aim: To evaluate the impact of performing endoscopy within 24 h on NVUGIB outcomes and to compare it in patients with lower-risk vs. higher-risk bleeding. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB over 4 years. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and outcome data were collected. Lower-risk bleeding was defined as a Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) <12 and higher-risk bleeding was defined as a GBS ≥12. Results: A total of 298 patients with suspected NVUGIB were included, 55% of whom had higher-risk bleeding. Endoscopy was performed within 24 h in 62.1% of the patients. In lower-risk bleeding patients, performance of endoscopy within 24 h was associated with a higher need for endoscopic treatment (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.2–5.7; p = 0.004), a lower 30-day mortality (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.27–0.63; p = 0.03), and a lower need for transfusion (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36–0.92; p = 0.02). In higher-risk bleeding patients, there were no statistically significant differences in NVUGIB outcomes in performing endoscopy within 24 h. Conclusion: Endoscopy within 24 h of presentation was associated with a lower need for transfusion, a higher need for endoscopic treatment, and a lower 30-day mortality in lower-risk NVUGIB patients. Thus, performing endoscopy within the first 24 h of presentation can have a positive impact on NVUGIB outcomes even in lower-risk bleeding.

English

BACKGROUND Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the common medical emergencies throughout the world that may require hospital admission and results in high patient morbidity and mortality. The presentation of UGI bleeding depends on the amount and location of haemorrhage. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) is the preferred investigative procedure for UGIB because of its accuracy, low rate of complication, and its potential for therapeutic interventions. The present study has been carried out to evaluate the different aetiological causes of UGIB in a tertiary care centre in the North Eastern part of India and compare the same with other studies done globally. METHODS This was a hospital based observational study with cross sectional design carried out in the Department of Medicine at Tripura Medical College &amp; DR BRAM Teaching Hospital, Agartala. Total 376 patients were selected for this study for over a period of 2 years from January 2017 to December 2018. Upper GI endoscopy was performed in all patients after hemodynamic stabilisation. Rockall scoring system was used in non-variceal cases to predict the mortality in patients with upper GI bleeding. RESULTS A total of 376 patients had endoscopy for UGIB which included 260 (69.1 %) males and 116 (30.9 %) females, and the mean age was 47.9 (± 17.0) years. The most common cause of UGIB was peptic ulcer disease (duodenal ulcer and gastric ulcer) consisting of 31.38 %, followed by erosive gastritis (23.94 %), oesophageal varix (11.17 %), portal hypertensive gastropathy (10.64 %), duodenitis (8.51 %). Gastrointestinal malignancy (gastric and oesophageal cancers) was reported in 3.98 % and rare causes of UGIB were Mallory-Weiss syndrome (1.86 %), and esophagitis (1.60 %). Among them 4.26 % of the patients had normal endoscopy findings. CONCLUSIONS In the present study, peptic ulcer disease was the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, followed by erosive gastritis. Rockall score of more than 4 was numerically associated with increased incidence of mortality. KEYWORDS Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB), Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (UGIE

Raising the threshold for hospital admission and endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the COVID-19 pandemic

See also: Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) GuidelineEndoscopy 2015; 47(10): a1-a46DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1393172

Assessment of Mortality and Causes after Re-bleed In Patients Having Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Introduction: Acute Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB), with prevalence of 36 to 172/100,000 natives per year, is a common medical emergency. Mortality rate after UGIB ranges from 4–14% while re-bleeding is evident in 10–30% of these patients. Despite advances in treatment modalities of UGIB, the in-hospital mortality rate remains high and it is commonly due to re-bleeding. However, the causes and frequency of mortality among patients with re-bleeding are not well known in Pakistan.&#x0D; Objective: To determine the frequency and causes of in-hospital mortality after re-bleeding among patients undergoing endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.&#x0D; Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was done in Military hospital Rawalpindi from December 2014 to June 2015. A total 150 patients aged between 18 to 65 years who presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and underwent upper GI endoscopy and re-bleed were included through purposive sampling. Structured questionnaire used to record data. The patients were observed for mortality and causes after re-bleeding in the hospital for about 5 days. Patients who died, the cause of the death was assessed by 2 senior consultant physicians. SPSS version 21 was used for data entry and analysis. Variables like mortality were presented as percentage and frequencies. Effect modifiers like age and gender were controlled by stratification.&#x0D; Results: The mean age of patients (n=150) was 43.97±12.28 years. Among total cases, 97 (64.7%) were males and 53 (35.7%) were females. The in-hospital mortality rate was 20% (n=30), re-bleed was cause in 12 (40%) while in 18 (60%) cause was other than re-bleed (cardiac, multi-organ failure, neurological, pulmonary, and advanced malignancy). Mortality in male patients was higher (n=18, 60.0%) as compared to female patients (n=12, 40.0%). The highest mortality (n=22, 73.3%) was observed in age group ˃43 years. The association of in-hospital mortality was statistically significant (p value = 0.02) by age but not by gender.&#x0D; Conclusion: In-hospital mortality after UGIB is 20 %, frequent cause is other than the re-bleed. Male above aged 43 are more vulnerable. Management of UGIB should also focus on optimization of non-re-bleeding causes and other co-morbid related deaths instead of merely maintaining homeostasis and blood transfusions.&#x0D; &#x0D; Keywords: Re-bleeding, Mortality, Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, Upper GI Endoscopy.

Azithromycin Versus Erythromycin Infusions in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background: Intravenous erythromycin prior to endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) improves outcomes but requires immediate preparation delaying administration in emergency cases. Azithromycin is readily available and does not require prolonged preparation. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of azithromycin in improving the quality of endoscopic visualization in upper GIB compared to erythromycin. Methods: Patients admitted with upper GIB who received erythromycin or azithromycin before urgent endoscopy were included. Primary outcome of the quality of visualization was assessed by two gastroenterologists, blinded to the choice of infusion, using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 8, with a maximum of 2 points assigned to the fundus, body, antrum and bulb. Results: Sixty-six patients were included; 25 received azithromycin and 41 received erythromycin. Mean total visualization score was significantly higher with azithromycin compared to that with erythromycin (6.8 ± 1.4 vs 5.5 ± 2.2, respectively; P=0.01) and remained significant after adjusting for confounders (Diff: 0.01, 1.88; P=0.05). Secondary outcomes analyses showed a shorter LOS when given azithromycin compared to erythromycin {6 (3-9) vs 8 (7-16) days, respectively, CI: 1.03, 3.89; P = 0.04}. Time between initiating the infusion and endoscopy was longer with azithromycin (Diff = 40.64 min; 95% CI: 7.23, 74.05; P=0.02). Need for second look endoscopy, procedure time, blood transfusion requirements and procedure-related complications did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Azithromycin infusion before endoscopy for upper GIB was associated with better visualization than that of erythromycin. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings. Funding: None. Declaration of Interest: All authors report no conflict of interest in relation to this study. Ethical Approval: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Virginia Commonwealth University.

A Comparison of Azithromycin to Erythromycin Infusions in Improving Visualization of Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Introduction: Several studies show the use of intravenous erythromycin prior to upper endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) improves visualization and decreases the need for second look endoscopy. Erythromycin requires reconstitution delaying administration in emergency procedures. Azithromycin is more readily available as it is part of pneumonia treatment protocols and does not require reconstitution. Physiologic studies show azithromycin produces motility effects similar to that of erythromycin. AIM: To assess the effect of azithromycin in improving the quality of endoscopic visualization in upper GIB compared to erythromycin. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients admitted with acute upper GIB who underwent emergent endoscopy and were ordered either erythromycin or azithromycin before procedure. Primary outcome of the quality of visualization was assessed by two gastroenterologists, blinded to the choice of infusion, using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 8 with a maximum of 2 points assigned to each of the fundus, body, antrum and bulb. Secondary outcomes included time elapsed between administering the infusion and starting the procedure, length of hospital stay, blood transfusions, and procedure-related complications. Results: The study included 31 patients in the erythromycin group and 18 patients in the azithromycin group. Mean age was 57 years and 68% were male. The overall median visualization score was significantly higher in the azithromycin group compared to that of the erythromycin group {7.0 (1.5) vs. 6.0 (3.0), respectively; P=0.02}. Time between administration of azithromycin and starting the procedure was longer than that of erythromycin but did not meet statistical significance (67 vs 48.5 minutes, respectively; P = 0.92). Length of hospital stay was comparable between the two groups after adjusting for the admission primary diagnosis (6.0 days for azithromycin vs. 7.0 days for erythromycin; P=0.48). Four patients were ordered erythromycin but this was not administered on time whereas all patient who were ordered azithromycin started the infusion prior to the procedure. Procedure immediate complications, need for second look endoscopy and number of transfused blood units did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Azithromycin infusion before endoscopy for upper GIB was associated with better visualization than that of erythromycin, the current standard of care. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

ROLE OF NON STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS IN ACUTE UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Objectives: Many patients presented to the causality with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which is a serious condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality especially in elderly patients and those with coexisting medical diseases. The purpose of the study was to assess the general use of NSAIDs and their relation to upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: Cross sectional study on patients who were referred for endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Sulaimany Teaching Hospital during the period from January to December 2016. All of them had been exposed to full history taking regarding age, gender, smoking, alcohol and medication used in addition to thorough physical examination and upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examination with biopsy when indicated. Results: This study enrolled 100 patients with upper GIT bleeding and showed that 48% of those with upper GIT bleeding were using NSAIDs, with male to female ratio of approximately 2:1, and 37 patients (77.1%) of those who were taken NSAIDs, did not use PPI concomitantly. Conclusion: The study also revealed that elderly patients taking NSAIDs were at higher risk of developing upper GIT bleeding. Peer Review History: Article received on- 2 October; Revised on- 2 November; Accepted on- 4 November, Available online 15 November 2016 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file: Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.5/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby, Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt, sally.elzahaby@yahoo.com Kian Navaee, Shahre Daru Pharmaceutical Co., Iran, kian.navaee@chemist.com Similar Articles: DEVELOPMENT AND ESTIMATION OF ANTI-INFLAMMATORY ACTIVITY OF TOPICAL ETORICOXIB EMULGEL BY CARRAGEENAN INDUCED PAW OEDEMA METHOD

A simple scoring system to assess the need for an endoscopic intervention in suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundAssessment of the emergent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients has important clinical implications. There is no validated criterion to triage. AimsTo develop a simple score predicting an endoscopic intervention. MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care centre. Primary outcome was the high-risk stigmata which were well-established endoscopic findings to determine the need for an endoscopic intervention. We created a simple score by multivariable logistic regression and compared with the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS). External validation was performed in a second cohort. Results284 of consecutive 568 patients with suspected UGIB had the high-risk stigmata. Three variables were selected: “no daily use of proton pump inhibitors during one week before examination (+1 point)”, “shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure)≥1 (+1 point)” and “urea/creatinine≥140 (blood urea nitrogen/creatinine≥30) (+1 point)”. The accumulating score (range 0–3) achieved an area under the receiver–operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70–0.78), which was superior to the GBS (AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59–0.68; p<0.001). Validation in an external cohort demonstrated superiority to the GBS (AUC, 0.78 vs. 0.59; p<0.001). ConclusionsThe simple score has greater accuracy than the GBS for assessing the need for an endoscopic intervention in cases of suspected UGIB. Further external validation should be performed to verify generalizability.