Introduction

Several risk stratification scores have been developed for predicting endoscopic treatment or patient survival in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

Aims & Methods

Our aim was to compare the performance of some previously described scores such as Canada-United Kingdom-Adelaide score (CANUKA), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Harbinger score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), red cell distribution width (RDW) and Rockall (pre-endoscopy and complete) scores in predicting with the following outcomes in patients with variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB): 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, need for interventional radiological procedure, need for RBC transfusion and rebleeding. Patients undergoing emergency endoscopy for upper GI bleeding at the Department of Emergency Medicine at Semmelweis University between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2023 were included in a retrospective cohort analysis. Cases with VUGIB were managed according to the ESGE guideline. Statistical methods included ROC analysis, through which we obtained the AUROC values.

Results

There were 126 patients with VUGIB (79 males, 47 females, mean age 58). In-hospital rebleeding rate was 7.9% (n=10/126) for VUGIB. Second look endoscopy was performed in 30 cases (23.8%). The indication for second look endoscopy was inadequate index endoscopy in 10 cases, suspicion of re-bleeding in 6 cases, control of endoscopic intervention in 12 cases. The 30-day mortality rate was 23.8% (n=30/126). Due to missing data in 5 patients scoring systems were analyzed in 121 patients. Area under receiver operator characteristic curves (AUROC) for predicting various outcomes were as follow: 30-day mortality (HARBINGER: 0.63, CANUKA: 0.75, Rockall (pre-endoscopy): 0.73, Rockall (complete): 0.73, GBS: 0.71, NLR: 0.65, RDW: 0,54); in-hospital mortality (HARBINGER: 0.59, CANUKA: 0.7, Rockall (pre-endoscopy): 0.67, Rockall (complete): 0.67, GBS: 0.65, NLR: 0.63, RDW: 0.56); need for interventional radiological procedure (HARBINGER: 0.62, CANUKA: 0.49, Rockall (pre-endoscopy): 0.56, Rockall (complete): 0.56, GBS: 0.54, NLR: 0.54, RDW: 0.67); need for RBC transfusion (HARBINGER: 0.66, CANUKA: 0.83, Rockall (pre-endoscopy): 0.7, Rockall (complete): 0.7, GBS: 0.78, NLR: 0.65, RDW: 0.63); rebleeding (HARBINGER: 0.45, CANUKA: 0.44, Rockall (pre-endoscopy): 0.42, Rockall (complete): 0.42, GBS: 0.5, NLR: 0.53, RDW: 0.56).

Conclusion

Currently available risk stratification scores developed mainly for NVUGIB, when used for VUGIB have a suboptimal performance (AUROC ≤0.8) in predicting important clinical outcomes as mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic or interventional radiological procedure. CANUKA was clinically effective and superior to other scoring systems in estimating the need for RBC transfusion. Further prospective studies on larger patient cohorts are needed to further analyze and improve risk stratification scores for VUGIB.

Disclosure

No Conflict of Interest

Introduction

Despite its widespread use, the benefit of pre-endoscopic fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) with mild to moderate coagulopathy remains unproven. Current guidelines are inconsistent, and indiscriminate use of FFP—particularly in patients with variceal bleeding—may expose patients to harm without improving outcomes.

Aims & Methods

To assess the impact of pre-endoscopic FFP transfusion on clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality, in patients with AUGIB and an INR between 1.5 and 2.5. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study at one university-affiliated and one tertiary care hospital in Thailand between January 2016 and December 2020. Adult patients with AUGIB and INR 1.5–2.5 were included. Patients were stratified into FFP and non-FFP groups based on transfusion prior to endoscopy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for age, comorbidities, bleeding etiology, and hemodynamic parameters. Subgroup analysis was conducted in patients with variceal bleeding.

Results

Among 244 patients (158 FFP; 86 non-FFP), those receiving FFP had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (24.1% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.001), pulmonary edema (23.4% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001), and longer hospital stay (mean 8.1 vs. 5.8 days; p < 0.001). After adjustment, FFP transfusion remained independently associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 5.65; 95% CI 2.13–14.99; p < 0.001) and pulmonary edema (adjusted OR 5.56; 95% CI 1.59–19.44; p = 0.007). In patients with variceal bleeding, the adverse effect of FFP was more pronounced. The adjusted 30-day mortality was higher in the FFP group (adjusted OR 2.38; p = 0.075), though this did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Pre-endoscopic FFP transfusion in AUGIB patients with INR 1.5–2.5 is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and volume-related complications, particularly in variceal bleeding. These findings support a more selective and individualized transfusion approach and challenge the routine use of FFP in this population. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these observations and guide evidence-based transfusion thresholds.

References

1. Laine L, Barkun AN, Saltzman JR, Martel M, Leontiadis GI. ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 May 1;116(5):899-917.
2. Beattie C, Chakravarthy M. Fresh Frozen Plasma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554919/
3. de Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G, Reiberger T, Ripoll C; Baveno VII Faculty. Baveno VII - Renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2022 Apr;76(4):959-974.

Introduction

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and timing to endoscopy are a recognised as risk factors for mortality. European Guidelines * suggest that the hemodynamical resuscitation could be performed before the endoscopy, however, indications are lacking about the timing of blood transfusions.

Aims & Methods

The aim of the study is to evaluate the transfusion timing to reduce death risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This is a prospective multicentre cohort study, including all consecutive hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Clinical, endoscopic source of bleeding, medical and endoscopic treatment, time to endoscopy, and timing to transfusion were collected. We adopted the ESGE* guidelines to define the need for transfusion, timing to endoscopy and mortality. We considered timing to transfusion before or after the endoscopic procedure. Statistics: multivariate backward logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio death risk for variables with main clinical relevance or highly statistical significance at univariate analyses. Variables identified by the logistic regression were used into the propensity-score matching to compare the death risk between the two groups.

Results

2,017 out of 3324 patients received a transfusion and were included in the analysis; the mean age was 69.7 [±15.1], male was 1,365 (67.7%); the source of bleeding was non-variceal in 1634 patients (81 %), 178 patients died (8.8%); 69 out of 700 (9.9 %) died in the group transfusion before endoscopy; 109 out 1317 (8.3 %) in the group transfusion after endoscopy with an OR 1.2 (C.I. 95% .86 to 1.68) p<= 0.23. Mortality between the two groups did not significantly differ when haemoglobin levels at admission were considered, nor after adjustment for potential confounding variables, including ASA score, in-hospital bleeding, haematemesis at presentation, shock at admission, altered mental status and timing to endoscopy. Propensity score matching analysis indicated that among patients who received a transfusion, the risk of death decreased when the transfusion was administered before the endoscopy and the haemoglobin level was below 7 g/dL (coefficient = -0.06, p = 0.06; see Table).

Conclusion

Red pack cell transfusions before or after endoscopy did not modify the death risk in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding; the death risk was less frequent in patients transfused before endoscopy and with a haemoglobin value lower than 7 gr/l. However, this risk increased in those patients transfused before endoscopy and with a haemoglobin value > 8 gr/l.

References

* Ian M. Gralnek et al. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 300–332

Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic gut-brain disorder that can be responsabil for a variety of uncomfortable gastrointestinal symptoms (laid out in the Rome Criteria) that can reduce quality of life. Although the precise mechanism remains unknown, recent research suggests that an imbalance in intestinal microbiota and a dysfunctional gut-brain axis may be involved in the development of IBS. Because of this, methods to restore the microbiota have been explored as treatment for this condition.

Aims & Methods

Randomized placebo controlled trial 180 patients: active group (probiotic formula, 3g/day- 92, placebo group – 88. men and women aged 24 to 75 who met the Rome IV criteria. One sachet probiotic (3 g) contains 7.5 billion bacteria: Lactobacillus casei W56, Lactococcus lactis W19, Lactobacillus acidophilus W22, Bifidobacterium lactis W52, Lactobacillus paracasei W20 Lactobacillus plantarum W62, Bifidobacterium lactis W51, Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, Lactobacillus salivarius W24. Assessments were made at 4, 8, 12 weeks. All patients agreed to maintain their lifestyle behaviors during their participation in the study. Exclusion criteria: chronic gastrointestinal condition (other than IBS), including inflammatory bowel disease, lactose intolerance, celiac disease, diabetes, neoplasms.Patients have complete weekly data on stool frequency and consistency (Boston scale) and intensity of IBS symptoms (abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating, flatulence/borborygmi, and difficulty defecating) on a Likert scale of 0 (absent) to 7 (severe). Participants completed an IBS-specific quality of life questionnaire (IBS-QoL) at randomization (V1), fallow-up (V2) and at the end of the intervention (V3). Primary endpoint was mean weekly scores of gastrointestinal symptoms. Responders of abdominal pain were defined as subjects who experienced a reduction of at least 30% of the mean daily abdominal score reported at baseline (week 0). Secondary endpoints were the total AUC (W0-W12) of abdominal symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating and flatulence/borborygmi).

Results

​There is a significant reduction in abdominal pain and bloating scores trough all 12 weeks of supplementation versus placebo. A higher overall IBS-QOL score, indicative of better QOL was reported at the end of the intervention (specially for interference with activity P=0.05, body image P=0.040, food avoidance P=0.03)

Conclusion

​The probiotic treatment provides statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits for individuals with IBS. Improves gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in IBS patient

References

Rome IV criteria-Rome Foundation

Introduction

Individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS) are predisposed to different tumors, including gastric (GC) and duodenal (DC) cancer, especially those with specific mutations or familial aggregation. However, the role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in these patients is still uncertain, with heterogeneous recommendations among different guidelines.

Aims & Methods

To estimate the overall incidence of GC and DC in individuals with LS, to determine the incidence of GC and DC in higher-risk subgroups within these patients, as well as to clarify the usefulness of screening or surveillance by EGD.

Systematic search of Pubmed and Embase for cohort studies and clinical trials from inception to April 2024. Incidences of GC and DC were calculated, as well as the relative risk (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals in those studies comparing patients under surveillance with EGD vs without. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic.

Results

A total of 584 studies were obtained, of which 30 were finally included, with a total of 31264 patients with LS. The overall incidence of GC was 2.04% (95%CI 1.63-2.45). The incidence of GC was 2.60% (95%CI 1.61-3.60) in MLH1 carriers and 2.91% (95%CI 1.63-2.45) in MSH2 carriers. In those with LS and family history, the incidence of GC was 25.94% (95%CI 15.01-36.87). The incidence of DC was 1.61% (95%CI 1.21-2.00).
Only 3 studies compared patients with LS in follow-up with EGD vs those without follow-up, evidencing a protective effect of EGD for GC [RR 0.31 (95%CI 0.14-0.69)], but not for DC [RR 0.65 (95%CI 0.22-1.32)].

Conclusion

The incidence of GC and DC in patients with LS is higher than that of the general population, especially in those patients with MLH1, MSH2 mutations or family aggregation. Surveillance with EGD could help to reduce this incidence through the diagnosis of premalignant lesions.

Introduction

Over the past decade, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) has emerged as a novel, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA). However, it is not yet known whether ERAT is a feasible alternative to antibiotic therapy (ABT).

Aims & Methods

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ERAT versus ABT in patients with AUA. We performed a systematic review across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, searching for studies comparing ERAT to ABT in this population. Outcomes of interest included therapeutic success, — defined as the absence of reintervention up to 1 year of follow-up — recurrence rates, mean time to disease recurrence, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Risk ratios (RR) were used to evaluate binary outcomes with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), while the mean difference (MD) was calculated for continuous outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.4.1) with a random-effects model.

Results

This meta-analysis included 3 studies — 2 control-matched cohorts and 1 randomized trial — comparing 457 ERAT patients to 784 patients receiving ABT for AUA. Baseline clinical characteristics were equally distributed between the groups and the time of follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between ERAT and ABT in treatment success (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07) or recurrence rate (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22; p = 0.10). The difference in time to recurrence was also not significant (MD 116 days; 95% CI -49 to 282; p = 0.17). However, ERAT was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD -1.85 days; 95% CI -3.15 to -0.55; p = 0.005).

Conclusion

In patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, ERAT is non-inferior to antibiotic therapy, while considerably reducing the length of hospital stay. Further studies are warranted to better assess the efficacy of ERAT compared to ABT, and whether it decreases the risk of appendicitis recurrence.

References

1. Kang, J., et al. (2021). The modified endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus antibiotic therapy alone for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. Surgical Endoscopy, 35(11), pp.6291-6299. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08129-8.
2. Li, D., et al. (2023). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy or antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis. British Journal of Surgery, 110(6), pp.635-637. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad023.
3. Zhan, K., et al. (2024). Visual Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Vs Antibiotic Therapy for Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003118.
   

Introduction

Acute GI bleeding (GIB) can present significant mortality. Topical Endoscopic Haemostatic Agents (TEHAs) have been added to endoscopic treatment modalities for GIB’s. There is no dedicated international consensus on the role of TEHAs in GIB control. We aimed to develop the first expert led consensus statements to provide international guidance on the use of TEHAs in acute GIB’s.

Aims & Methods

A team of 15 world renowned experts in the field of acute GIB from 8 countries were recruited. All panel members have published extensively and possess significant expertise in the cognitive and endoscopic aspects of GIB management. A first meeting was held to define statements and divide them in 5 subgroups: Indications of therapy, mechanism of action, usage, safety and published evidence. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, they voted on statements by combining expert collective judgement and best available evidence in a two-round voting process. Extensive literature searches were carried out on each statement to provide the latest evidence base to support decisions. A second meeting was held to discuss the results of the first meeting and refine statements. A second round of voting was conducted to rate refined statements. Statements were rated on a 9-point interval scale (1 to 9). A higher score implied a “more appropriate” statement i.e. an important statement in the management of GIB patients. Four statistical methods were used to delineate statements that satisfied all criteria of appropriateness: 1. mean absolute deviation from the mean, 2. BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, 3. RAND method and 4. inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry methods. For a statement to be considered appropriate it had to meet all statistical definitions of appropriateness showing consensus agreement.

Results

24 statements were presented in round one. 15 statements met all four statistical definitions of appropriateness and proceeded to round two. Following round two, a list of 11 final consensus statements were scored as appropriate and met all four statistical definitions of appropriateness showing overall consensus being reached (Table 1). There was 100% agreement that TEHAs are effective in achieving haemostasis in malignancy related GIB’s (statement 2), can be used as ‘salvage’ therapy for non-variceal GIB’s (statement 4), and can be used as a bridge to definitive non-endoscopic therapy for persistent GIB’s (statement 5). These represent the most important indications for TEHAs that endoscopists should recognise.

Table 1: Final eleven statements voted as appropriate reaching expert consensus after round two. (Score 1-3 = inappropriate statement, score 4 – 6 = uncertain about statement, score 7 – 9 = appropriate statement), TEHAs = Topical Endoscopic Haemostatic Agents

Conclusion

We present the first dedicated international consensus statements aimed at providing guidance to clinicians on best practice use of TEHAs in patients with acute GIB’s. There was consensus on the need for future trials to compare use of different haemostatic powders in GIB’s.