scholarly journals Does Preendoscopy Rockall Score Safely Identify Low Risk Patients following Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage?

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Johnston ◽  
Iain A. Murray ◽  
Michael Schultz ◽  
Peter McLeod ◽  
Nathan O’Donnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Therapy ◽  
Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Outpatient Management ◽  
Endoscopic Intervention ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Rebleeding Rate ◽  
Rockall Score ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Objective.To determine if preendoscopy Rockall score (PERS) enables safe outpatient management of New Zealanders with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH).Methods.Retrospective analysis of adults with UGIH over 59 consecutive months. PERS, diagnosis, demographics, need for endoscopic therapy, transfusion or surgery and 30-day mortality and 14-day rebleeding rate, and sensitivity and specificity of PERS for enabling safe discharge preendoscopy were calculated.Results.424 admissions with UGIH. Median age was 74.3 years (range 19–93 years), with 55.1% being males. 30-day mortality was 4.6% and 14-day rebleeding rate was 6.0%. Intervention was required in 181 (46.6%): blood transfusion (147 : 37.9%), endoscopic intervention (75 : 19.3%), and surgery (8 : 2.1%). 42 (10.8%) had PERS = 0 with intervention required in 15 (35.7%). Females more frequently required intervention, OR 1.73 (CI: 1.12–2.69). PERS did not predict intervention but did predict 30-day mortality: each point increase equated to an increase in mortality of OR 1.46 (CI: 1.11–1.92). Taking NSAIDs/aspirin reduced 30-day mortality, OR 0.22 (CI: 0.08–0.60).Conclusion.PERS identifies 10.8% of those with UGIH as low risk but 35.7% required intervention or died. It has a limited role in assessing these patients and should not be used to identify those suitable for outpatient endoscopy.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2021-101851
Author(s):  
Philip Dunne ◽  
Victoria Livie ◽  
Aaron McGowan ◽  
Wilson Siu ◽  
Sardar Chaudhary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Descriptive Data ◽  
Risk Threshold ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Rebleeding Rate ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal ◽  
Related Mortality

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 studied the safety and efficacy of this change.MethodsBetween 1 April 2020 and 30 June 2020 we prospectively collected data on consecutive unselected patients with UGIB at five large Scottish hospitals. Primary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day mortality and rebleeding. We compared the results with prospective prepandemic descriptive data.Results397 patients were included, and 284 index endoscopies were performed. 26.4% of patients had endoscopic intervention at index endoscopy. 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.1% (53/397), and 33.3% (23/69) for pre-existing inpatients. Bleeding-related mortality was 5% (20/397). 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.3% (25/397). 84 patients had GBS 0–3, of whom 19 underwent inpatient endoscopy, 0 had rebleeding and 2 died. Compared with prepandemic data in three centres, there was a fall in mean number of UGIB presentations per week (19 vs 27.8; p=0.004), higher mean GBS (8.3 vs 6.5; p<0.001) with fewer GBS 0–3 presentations (21.5% vs 33.3%; p=0.003) and higher all-cause mortality (12.2% vs 6.8%; p=0.02). Predictors of mortality were cirrhosis, pre-existing inpatient status, age >70 and confirmed COVID-19. 14 patients were COVID-19 positive, 5 died but none from UGIB.ConclusionDuring the pandemic when services were under severe pressure, extending the low-risk threshold for UGIB inpatient endoscopy to GBS 0–3 appears safe. The higher mortality of patients with UGIB during the pandemic is likely due to presentation of a fewer low-risk patients.

scholarly journals A safe protocol to identify low-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia for outpatient management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Teigell Muñoz ◽  
Elena García-Guijarro ◽  
Paula García-Domingo ◽  
Guadalupe Pérez-Nieto ◽  
Fernando Roque Rojas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Risk ◽  
Outpatient Management ◽  
Risk Patients

Outcomes and Cost of Outpatient or Inpatient Management of 712 Patients With Febrile Neutropenia

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 606-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda S. Elting ◽  
Charles Lu ◽  
Carmelita P. Escalante ◽  
Sharon H. Giordano ◽  
Jonathan C. Trent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Outpatient Management ◽  
Single Episode ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Inpatient Management ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Cost

Purpose We retrospectively compared the outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient management of low-risk outpatients who presented to an emergency department with febrile neutropenia (FN). Patients and Methods A single episode of FN was randomly chosen from each of 712 consecutive, low-risk solid tumor outpatients who had been treated prospectively on a clinical pathway (1997-2003). Their medical records were reviewed retrospectively for overall success (resolution of all signs and symptoms of infection without modification of antibiotics, major medical complications, or intensive care unit admission) and nine secondary outcomes. Outcomes were assessed by physician investigators who were blinded to management strategy. Outcomes and costs (payer's perspective) in 529 low-risk outpatients were compared with 123 low-risk patients who were psychosocially ineligible for outpatient management (no access to caregiver, telephone, or transportation; residence > 30 minutes from treating center; poor compliance with previous outpatient therapy) using univariate statistical tests. Results Overall success was 80% among low-risk outpatients and 79% among low-risk inpatients. Response to initial antibiotics was 81% among outpatients and 80% among inpatients (P = .94); 21% of those initially treated as outpatients subsequently required hospitalization. All patients ultimately responded to antibiotics; there were no deaths. Serious complications were rare (1%) and equally frequent between the groups. The mean cost of therapy among inpatients was double that of outpatients ($15,231 v $7,772; P < .001). Conclusion Outpatient management of low-risk patients with FN is as safe and effective as inpatient management of low-risk patients and is significantly less costly.

scholarly journals Mo1093 Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Patients With Upper GI Bleeding: Can We Safely Extend the Glasgow Blatchford Score in Clinical Practice?

2014 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. S-555
Author(s):  
Zia Mustafa ◽  
Elaine Clark ◽  
Neil Campbell ◽  
Allan Cameron ◽  
Adrian J. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gi Bleeding ◽  
Outpatient Management ◽  
Upper Gi Bleeding ◽  
Upper Gi ◽  
Risk Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document