scholarly journals Acute upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding: How to determine low risk patients for rebleeding and mortality after endoscopic sclerotherapy?

2007 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-114
Author(s):  
S. Djuranovic ◽  
M. Spuran ◽  
N.S. Mijalkovic ◽  
D. Stanisavljevic ◽  
M. Ugljesic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Risk ◽  
Endoscopic Sclerotherapy ◽  
First Line ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Bleeding Lesion ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Initial Hospitalization ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

Introduction: Successful endoscopic sclero-therapy is effective in securing hemostasis for bleeding lesions and remains the first line and only needed therapy for most of the patients (pts), but bleeding reoccurs in 10% to 30% pts, and 4% to 14% of the pts die after acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The need for hospitalization and its duration for all the bleeding pts is still a controversial question. AIM: To create the simple scoring system able to determine low risk pts for rebleeding and mortality by establishing the relative importance of risk factors for rebleeding and mortality after successful endoscopic sclerotherapy of acute nonvariceal UGIB. Patients and methods: Prospective study included 315 pts who where admitted to hospital because of acute nonvariceal UGIB. All of them underwent gastroscopy with successful sclerotherapy within 12 hours after the admission. We investigated the episode of rebleeding and death during the initial hospitalization, and analyzed the following parameters: age, gender, drug intake, shock, bleeding stigmata, location of bleeding lesion and comorbidity. Results: Rebleeding occurred in 53 pts (16.8%) and was determined by shock, bleeding stigmata and comorbidity. Eleven pts (3.5%) died and shock, rebleeding and comorbidity were all independent, statistically significant predictors of pts? mortality. The numerical scores for determination of pts with different risk levels for rebleeding and mortality have been developed using the significant predictors of rebleeding and death. The score values for rebleeding ranged from 3 to 9 and pts with values <4 had low risk of rebleeding. We identified 59 pts (18,7% of all) with score for rebleeding <4. Score values for mortality risk ranged from 3 to 8 and the values <5 revealed negligible risk of death. In our group we found 290 pts (92,1% of all) with low mortality score values. Conclusion: Following the successful initial endoscopic sclerotherapy, these scores can help to identify pts with low risk of rebleeding and negligible risk of death, so they can be treated as outpatients.

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.

Survival Disparities in Patients with Lymphoma According to Place of Residence and Treatment Provider: A Population-Based Study

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 874-874
Author(s):  
Fausto R Loberiza ◽  
Anthony J Cannon ◽  
Dennis D Weisenburger ◽  
Julie M. Vose ◽  
Matt J. Moehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Objectives: We evaluated the association of the primary area of residence (urban vs. rural) and treatment (trt) provider (university-based vs. community-based) with overall survival in patients with lymphoma, and determined if there are patient subgroups that could benefit from better coordination of care. Methods: We performed a population-based study in 2,330 patients with centrally confirmed lymphoma from Nebraska and surrounding states reported to the Nebraska Lymphoma Study Group between 1982 and 2006. Patient residential ZIP codes at the time to trt were used to determine rural/urban designation, household income and distance to trt center; while trt providers were categorized into university-based or community based. Multivariate analyses were used to group patients into risk levels based on 8 factors found to be associated with survival at the time of trt (age, performance score, Ann Arbor stage, presence of B symptoms, LDH levels, tumor bulk, nodal and extranodal involvement). The following categories were identified: low-risk (1–3 factors), intermediate risk (4–5 factors), and high-risk (≥6 factors). Cox proportional regression analyses, stratified by type of lymphoma (low-grade NHL, high-grade NHL and Hodgkin) were used to evaluate the association between place of residence and trt provider with overall survival. Results: Among urban residents, 321 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (UUB) and 816 (35%) were treated by community-based providers (UCB). Among rural residents, 332 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (RUB) and 861 (37%) were treated by community-based providers (RCB). Patients from rural areas were more likely to be older and Caucasian, with a lower median household income, greater travel distance to seek trt, and more likely to have high-risk disease when compared to patients from urban areas. In multivariate analysis, using all patients regardless of risk level, the relative risk of death (RR) among UUB, UCB and RUB was not statistically different. However, RCB had a higher risk of death RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.65, p=0.01; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04–1.33, p<0.01; and RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.49, p=0.01 when compared with UUB, UCB and RUB, respectively. This association remained true in both low- and intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, both RUB and RCB were at higher risk of death when compared with UUB or UCB, while UCB were not different from UUB. We found no differences in progression-free survival according to place of residence and trt provider. The use of stem cell transplantation was significantly higher in patients coming from urban and rural areas treated by university-based providers (UUB 19%, RUB 16%) compared to urban and rural patients treated by community-based providers (UCB 11%, RCB 10%, p < 0.01). Patients from rural areas (RUB and RCB) were slightly less likely to die from lymphoma-related causes than patients from urban areas (75% versus 80%, p=0.04). Conclusion: Overall survival in patients with lymphoma is inferior in patients coming from rural areas. This relationship varies according to treatment provider and pretreatment risk levels. Further studies in patients from rural areas are needed to understand how coordination of care is carried to design appropriate interventions that may improve the disparity noted.

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.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: identifying low risk patients

Gut ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
pp. 1641.1-1641
Author(s):  
Richard F A Logan ◽  
Sarah Hearnshaw ◽  
Derek Lowe ◽  
Simon P L Travis ◽  
M Stephen Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

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 Impact of relative dose intensity of FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy on risk of death among stage III colon cancer patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meijiao Zhou ◽  
Trevor D. Thompson ◽  
Hui-Yi Lin ◽  
Vivien W. Chen ◽  
Jordan J. Karlitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Relative Dose Intensity ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Stage Iii Colon Cancer ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Clinical trials have indicated high-risk (T4 and/or N2) and low-risk (T1-T3 and N1) stage III colon cancer patients might need different doses of FOLFOX to reserve a similar survival probability. Observational studies have investigated the effect of relative dose intensity (RDI) of FOLFOX on cancer survival for patients with stage III colon cancer, but nonetheless, the studies focused on very specific populations, and none performed stratified analysis by risk profiles. This study aims to identify the optimal RDI of FOLFOX administered for high-risk and low-risk stage III colon cancer patients.Methods Data on 407 eligible patients, diagnosed with stage III colon cancer in 2011 who received FOLFOX, were collected by the eight population-based cancer registries for a CDC National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) project focused on Comparative Effectiveness Research. We employed Kaplan-Meier method, cumulative incidence function (CIF), Multivariable Cox model and Fine-Gray competing risks model to explore Optimal Relative Dose Intensity (RDI) defined as the lowest RDI administered without significant differences in either overall or cause-specific death.Results Among the 168 high-risk patients, the optimal RDI cut-off point was 70% where there was no statistically significant difference in overall mortality (HR=1.87; 95% CI: 0.84-4.19) and cause-specific mortality (HR=1.72; 95% CI: 0.61-4.85) when RDI<70% vs. RDI≥70%, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariates. When the RDI cut-off was lower than the optimal one (<55% vs. ≥55%, <60% vs. ≥60%, or <65% vs. ≥65%), the overall and cause-specific mortalities were significantly statistically different between the two groups of each comparison. Among the 239 low-risk patients, none of the evaluated cut-offs were associated with statistically significant differences in overall and cause-specific mortalities between comparison groups. The lowest RDI we assessed was 45%, HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.23-2.67 for the overall mortality and HR=0.49; 95% CI: 0.05-4.84 for the cause-specific mortality, when RDI<45% vs. RDI≥45%.Conclusions To best utilize health care resources while maintaining efficacy, RDI can be maintained at a minimum of 70% in high-risk stage III colon cancer patients. For low-risk patients, we found that RDI as low as 45% did not impact risk of death.

Rapid rule out for suspected myocardial infarction: is the algorithm appropriate for all?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erez Marcusohn ◽  
Danny Epstein ◽  
Ariel Roguin ◽  
Robert Zukermann
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Troponin I ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Grace Score ◽  
High Sensitive Troponin ◽  
Rule Out

Abstract Aims Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with cardiac chest pain and high-sensitive troponin I (HsTnI) less than 5 ng/L have very good prognosis and low risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. The 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suggests that patients with normal high-sensitive troponin, which are free of chest pain and have a global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) score less than 140 are eligible for discharge from the hospital for outpatient workup. Our hypothesis suggests that not all patients with GRACE score under 140 should be discharged for ambulatory tests even with undetectable HsTnI as recommended in the guidelines. Methods and results Population-based retrospective cohort study in a large tertiary care centre. The study population included all patients discharged from the hospital between 1 February 2016 and 28 February 2019 following rule out of MI. During the study period, a total of 13 800 patients were discharged from the hospital after rule out of MI. Among them, 9236 (67%) had HsTnI below 5 ng/L. A total of 7705 patients (83%) met the criteria for low (n = 7162) or moderate (n = 543) GRACE risk score. Moderate-risk patients had significantly more adverse events than low-risk patients (4.6% vs. 2.1%, P &lt; 0.001). They are in higher risk of death (0.5% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.042), revascularization (3.9% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.0047), and readmission due to ACS (1.1% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.031). Conclusion Patients presenting to the ED with chest pain and HsTnI less than 5 ng/L and GRACE score under 140 have 2–4% adverse event in 60 days. The differences between the groups suggest using rapid rule out algorithms for only low-risk patients with GRACE score under 73.

Efficacy and safety of an early discharge protocol in low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

1998 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Moreno ◽  
Eduardo Jaurrieta ◽  
Humberto Aranda ◽  
Juan Fabregat ◽  
Leandro Farran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Discharge Protocol ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document