Yield of Post-Acute Diverticulitis Colonoscopy for Ruling Out Colorectal Cancer.

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is recommended post-acute diverticulitis (AD) to exclude underlying adenocarcinoma (CRC). However, post-AD colonoscopy utility remains controversial. We aimed to examine yield of post-AD colonoscopy in our majority-Hispanic patient population. Methods: Patients undergoing post-AD colonoscopy between 11/1/2015-7/31/2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained endoscopic database. AD cases without computed tomography confirmation were excluded. Pertinent data, including complicated vs uncomplicated AD, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result post-AD/pre-colonoscopy, and number/type/location of non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenomas, and CRC, were abstracted. Analyses were conducted using two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests. Results: 208 patients were included, of whom 62.0% had uncomplicated AD. Median age was 53, 54.3% were female, and 77.4% were Hispanic. Ninety non-advanced adenomas were detected in 45 patients (21.6%), in addition to advanced adenoma in eight patients (3.8%). Two patients (1.0%) had CRC, both of whom had complicated AD in the same location seen on imaging, and one of whom was FIT+ (the other had not undergone FIT). Patients with uncomplicated versus complicated AD had similarly low rates of advanced adenomas (4.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.713). FIT data were available in 51 patients and positive in three (5.9%); non-advanced adenomas were found in all three FIT+ patients. No FIT- patient had an advanced adenoma or CRC. Conclusion: Colonoscopy post-AD is generally low yield, with CRC being rare and found only in those with complicated AD. Colonoscopy post-complicated AD appears advisable, whereas less invasive testing (e.g. FIT) may be considered post-uncomplicated AD to inform the need for colonoscopy.

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal.

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

Doppler Endoscopic Probe Monitoring of Blood Flow Improves Risk Stratification and Outcomes of Patients With Severe Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For 4 decades, stigmata of recent hemorrhage in patients with nonvariceal lesions have been used for risk stratification and endoscopic hemostasis. The arterial blood flow that underlies the stigmata rarely is monitored, but can be used to determine risk for rebleeding. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether Doppler endoscopic probe monitoring of blood flow improves risk stratification and outcomes in patients with severe nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. METHODS: In a single-blind study performed at 2 referral centers we assigned 148 patients with severe nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (125 with ulcers, 19 with Dieulafoy's lesions, and 4 with Mallory Weiss tears) to groups that underwent standard, visually guided endoscopic hemostasis (control, n = 76), or endoscopic hemostasis assisted by Doppler monitoring of blood flow under the stigmata (n = 72). The primary outcome was the rate of rebleeding after 30 days; secondary outcomes were complications, death, and need for transfusions, surgery, or angiography. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the rates of lesion rebleeding within 30 days of endoscopic hemostasis in the control group (26.3%) vs the Doppler group (11.1%) (P = .0214). The odds ratio for rebleeding with Doppler monitoring was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.143-0.8565) and the number needed to treat was 7. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled trial of patients with severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage from ulcers or other lesions, Doppler probe guided endoscopic hemostasis significantly reduced 30-day rates of rebleeding compared with standard, visually guided hemostasis. Guidelines for nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding should incorporate these results. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00732212 (CLIN-013-07F).

Origin, Clinical Characteristics and 30-Day Outcomes of Severe Hematochezia in Cirrhotics and Non-cirrhotics.

BACKGROUND: The sites of origin, causes and outcomes of severe hematochezia have not been compared between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics. In cirrhotics versus non-cirrhotics presenting with severe hematochezia, we aimed at (1) identifying the site and etiology of gastro-intestinal bleeding and independent predictors of bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract versus small bowel or the colon, (2) comparing 30-day clinical outcomes, and (3) proposing an algorithm for management of severe hematochezia. METHODS: In this cohort study from two university-based medical centers, 860 consecutive patients with severe hematochezia admitted from 1995 to 2011 were prospectively enrolled with 160 (18.6 %) cirrhotics. We studied (a) general clinical and laboratory characteristics of cirrhotics versus non-cirrhotics, (b) predictors of bleeding sites in each patient group by multiple variable regression analysis, and compared (c) 30-day outcomes, including rebleeding, surgery and deaths. RESULTS: Cirrhosis independently predicted an upper gastrointestinal source of bleeding (OR 3.47; 95 % CI 2.01-5.96) as well as history of hematemesis, melena in the past 30 days, positive nasogastric aspirate, prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding or use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. The most prevalent diagnoses were esophageal varices (20 %) in cirrhotics and colon diverticular bleeding (27.1 %) in non-cirrhotics. Thirty-day rates of rebleeding, surgical interventions and deaths were 23.1 versus 15 % (P = 0.01), 14.4 versus 6.4 % (P < 0.001), and 17.5 versus 4.1 % (P < 0.001), in cirrhotics versus non-cirrhotics, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cirrhosis predicted an upper gastrointestinal site of bleeding in patients presenting with severe hematochezia. The 30-day rates of rebleeding, surgery, and death were significantly higher in cirrhotics than in non-cirrhotics.

Doppler endoscopic probe as a guide to risk stratification and definitive hemostasis of peptic ulcer bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For more than 4 decades endoscopists have relied on ulcer stigmata for risk stratification and as a guide to hemostasis. None used arterial blood flow underneath stigmata to predict outcomes. For patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), we used a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) for (1) detection of blood flow underlying stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), (2) quantitating rates of residual arterial blood flow under SRH after visually directed standard endoscopic treatment, and (3) comparing risks of rebleeding and actual 30-day rebleed rates for spurting arterial bleeding (Forrest [F] IA) and oozing bleeding (F IB). METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 163 consecutive patients with severe PUB and different SRH. RESULTS: All blood flow detected by the DEP was arterial. Detection rates were 87.4% in major SRH-spurting arterial bleeding (F IA), non-bleeding visible vessel (F IIA), clot (F IIB)-and were significantly lower at 42.3% (P < .0001) for an intermediate group of oozing bleeding (F IB) or flat spot (F IIC). For spurting bleeding (F IA) versus oozing (F IB), baseline DEP arterial flow was 100% versus 46.7%, residual blood flow detected after endoscopic hemostasis was 35.7% versus 0%, and 30-day rebleed rates were 28.6% versus 0% (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: (1) For major SRH versus oozing or spot, the arterial blood flow detection rate by the DEP was significantly higher, indicating a higher rebleed risk. (2) Before and after endoscopic treatment, spurting (F IA) PUB had significantly higher rates of blood flow detection than oozing (F IB) PUB and a significantly higher 30-day rebleed rate. (3) The DEP is recommended as a new endoscopic guide with SRH to improve risk stratification and potentially definitive hemostasis for PUB.

Comparison of Three Risk Scores to Predict Outcomes of Severe Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Improved medical decisions by using a score at the initial patient triage level may lead to improvements in patient management, outcomes, and resource utilization. There is no validated score for management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) unlike for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracies of 3 different prognostic scores [Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score, Charlson index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score] for the prediction of 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death in severe LGIB. METHODS: Data on consecutive patients hospitalized with severe gastrointestinal bleeding from January 2006 to October 2011 in our 2 tertiary academic referral centers were prospectively collected. Sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve were computed for 3 scores for predictions of rebleeding, surgery, and mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five consecutive patients with LGIB were included between 2006 and 2011. Twenty-three percent of patients rebled, 6% had surgery, and 7.7% of patients died. The accuracies of each score never reached 70% for predicting rebleeding or surgery in either. The ASA score had a highest accuracy for predicting mortality within 30 days (83.5%), whereas the Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score and the Charlson index both had accuracies <75% for the prediction of death within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: ASA score could be useful to predict death within 30 days. However, a new score is still warranted to predict all 30 days outcomes (rebleeding, surgery, and death) in LGIB.

Natural history of definitive diverticular hemorrhage based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage and colonoscopic Doppler blood flow monitoring for risk stratification and definitive hemostasis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few prospective reports describe the short-term natural history of colon diverticular hemorrhage based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage, and none include blood flow detection for risk stratification or as a guide to definitive hemostasis. Our purposes were to report the 30-day natural history of definitive diverticular hemorrhage based on stigmata and to describe Doppler probe blood flow detection as a guide to definitive hemostasis. METHODS: Different cohorts of patients with severe diverticular bleeding and stigmata on urgent colonoscopy are reported. For 30-day natural history, patients were treated medically. If severe rebleeding occurred, they had surgical or angiographic treatment. We report natural history with major stigmata (active bleeding, visible vessel, or adherent clot) and no stigmata or flat spots after clots were washed away. We also report Doppler probe detection of arterial blood flow underneath stigmata before and after hemostasis in a recent cohort. RESULTS: For natural history, patients with major stigmata treated medically had 65.8% (25/38) rebleeding rates, and 44.7% (17/38) had intervention for hemostasis. Patients with spots or clean bases had no rebleeding. A Doppler probe detected arterial blood flow in 92% of major stigmata--none after hemostasis--and there was no rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Patients with major stigmata treated medically had high rates of rebleeding and intervention for hemostasis. (2) Patients with clean diverticula or only flat spots had no rebleeding. (3) High rates of arterial blood flow were detected under major stigmata with a Doppler probe, but with obliteration by hemostasis no rebleeding occurred.

Epistaxis in end stage liver disease masquerading as severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

AIM: To describe the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of end stage liver disease (ESLD) patients with severe epistaxis thought to be severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH). METHODS: This observational single center study included all consecutive patients with ESLD and epistaxis identified from consecutive subjects hospitalized with suspected UGIH and prospectively enrolled in our databases of severe UGIH between 1998 and 2011. RESULTS: A total of 1249 patients were registered for severe UGIH in the data basis, 461 (36.9%) were cirrhotics. Epistaxis rather than UGIH was the bleeding source in 20 patients. All patients had severe coagulopathy. Epistaxis was initially controlled in all cases. Fifteen (75%) subjects required posterior nasal packing and 2 (10%) embolization in addition to correction of coagulopathy. Five (25%) patients died in the hospital, 12 (60%) received orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), and 3 (15%) were discharged without OLT. The mortality rate was 63% in patients without OLT. CONCLUSION: Severe epistaxis in patients with ESLD is (1) a diagnosis of exclusion that requires upper endoscopy to exclude severe UGIH; and (2) associated with a high mortality rate in patients not receiving OLT.

Capsule endoscopy is not as accurate as esophagogastroduodenoscopy in screening cirrhotic patients for varices.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the standard technique for screening cirrhotic patients for high-risk varices and other significant upper gastrointestinal lesions (HRVLs). We investigated whether esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is as convenient and accurate as EGD for the detection of HRVLs. METHODS: We analyzed data from 65 cirrhotic patients without prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were examined for varices and HRVLs by ECE and EGD (both procedures were performed on the same day). EGD was performed by 2 physicians (75% of patients were unsedated) who used standard grading for esophageal and gastric varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and HRVLs. Coded capsule tracings were read by 2 investigators, blinded to the EGD findings, using standard grading. RESULTS: The median procedure time for EGD (with or without biopsy collection) was 3 minutes, compared with 20 minutes for ECE. The overall accuracy for diagnosis of esophageal varices was 63.2% ± 5.9%; for detection of esophageal varices red marks was 68.8% ± 5.4%; and for diagnosis of other HRVLs was 51.5% ± 4.2%. The interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of esophageal varices was 90.8%; in the detection of esophageal varices red marks was 86.2%; and in the diagnosis of other HRVLs was 7.3%. CONCLUSIONS: ECE is not as accurate as EGD in the diagnosis of esophageal varices and red markings or in grading esophageal varices. Moreover, ECE had poor accuracy in grading portal hypertensive gastropathy and detecting ulcers, gastric varices, and other significant upper gastrointestinal lesions. It took significantly longer to perform ECE and interpret the results than for EGD. These findings do not support ECE as a preferred tool for screening esophageal varices and HRVLs.

Endoscopic therapy for severe ulcer bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding secondary to ulcer disease occurs commonly and results in significant patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis of the source of the UGI hemorrhage and can reliably identify those high-risk subgroups that may benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce the cost of medical care. This article discusses the important aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding from ulcers, with a focus on endoscopic therapy.

Ischemic colitis as a cause of severe hematochezia: risk factors and outcomes compared with other colon diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors and outcomes of severe hematochezia from ischemic colitis compared with other colonic diagnoses have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: Our purposes were (1) to compare demographics and outcomes of patients hospitalized with severe hematochezia from ischemic colitis compared with other colonic diagnoses, (2) to compare inpatient and outpatient start of bleeding from ischemic colitis, and (3) to describe potential risk factors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral academic centers. PATIENTS: Patients referred for gastroenterology consultation for severe hematochezia. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopic therapy was provided as indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Rebleeding, surgery, and length of hospital stay after colonoscopy. RESULTS: Of 550 patients in the past 12 years with severe hematochezia from colonic sources, the cause in 65 patients (11.8%) was ischemia. Ischemic colitis was found more often in females, in patients taking anticoagulant agents, in patients with severe lung disease, those with higher creatinine levels, those with higher glucose levels, and those with more fresh frozen plasma transfusions. Five patients with focal lesions had colonoscopic hemostasis. Major 30-day outcomes of ischemic colitis patients were significantly worse than patients with other colonic diagnoses. Patients with inpatient (vs outpatient) ischemic colitis had significantly more and more severe comorbidities at baseline and significantly higher rates of rebleeding, surgery, and more days spent in hospital and in the intensive care unit. LIMITATIONS: Two-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Major 30-day outcomes in ischemic colitis patients were significantly worse than in patients with other colonic diagnoses. Comparing outpatient and inpatient start of ischemic colitis, inpatients had significantly worse outcomes.

Long-term quality of life improvement in subjects with healed erosive esophagitis: treatment with lansoprazole.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic symptomatic condition and may be associated with erosive esophagitis (EE). Considerable data on the long-term maintenance of healing of EE are available, but data on long-term GERD symptom prevention and patient quality of life (QOL) are limited. AIMS: To investigate QOL in subjects with healed EE who received 12 months of double-blind maintenance treatment with lansoprazole or ranitidine, followed by long-term open-label lansoprazole therapy to prevent recurrence of EE. METHODS: Subjects with healed EE received 12 months of double-blind maintenance treatment with lansoprazole 15 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily, followed by dose-titrated, open-label lansoprazole therapy for up to 82 months. RESULTS: During double-blind treatment (n = 206), lansoprazole-treated patients showed significantly (P

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

Long-term efficacy of lansoprazole in preventing relapse of erosive reflux esophagitis.

In a phase III study of lansoprazole treatment, patients with healed or unhealed erosive esophagitis entered a titrated open-label treatment period and received lansoprazole for

Lansoprazole for long-term maintenance therapy of erosive esophagitis: double-blind comparison with ranitidine.

In a study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lansoprazole to prevent the relapse of erosive esophagitis (EE), 206 of 241 patients (85%) healed after open-label treatment with lansoprazole 30 mg once daily for 8 weeks and received double-blind maintenance treatment with lansoprazole 15 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for up to 1 year. At 1 year, 67% of lansoprazole-treated and 13% of ranitidine-treated patients remained healed (P<0.001). Lansoprazole-treated patients experienced significantly greater symptom relief (P<0.001), and, if asymptomatic at entry into the maintenance phase, remained asymptomatic for significantly longer than ranitidine-treated patients (P<0.001). Symptom status correlated with healing (P=0.001), supporting the symptom-directed management of EE. Both treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected events occurred. Daily therapy with lansoprazole to prevent the relapse of EE is effective, well tolerated, and superior to ranitidine in the maintenance of healing and symptom relief.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.

The short-term medical management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding occurs frequently and results in substantial patient morbidity, mortality and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and can identify high-risk subgroups in ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and would benefit most from endoscopic haemostasis. Several different pharmacological therapies have been used for patients with bleeding ulcers, including intravenous histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, somatostatin and octreotide, and tranexamic acid. The results of several studies and meta-analyses favour high-dose, intravenous proton pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole or pantoprazole, after successful endoscopic haemostasis.For patients with ulcer bleeding and low-risk endoscopic stigmata, high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy is suggested. Medical management with proton pump inhibitors is not a substitute for appropriate endoscopic therapy for patients with UGI bleeding and high-risk ulcer stigmata.

Endoscopic treatment of ulcer bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding secondary to ulcer disease occurs commonly and results in significant patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis of the source of the UGI hemorrhage and can reliably identify those high-risk subgroups that may benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. Large-channel therapeutic endoscopes are recommended. Endoscopists should be very experienced in management of patients with UGI hemorrhage, including the use of various hemostatic devices. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coaptive coagulation (with multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy with endoscopic hemostasis of major stigmata. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic therapy and should be triaged to less intensive care and be considered for early discharge. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce cost of medical care.

Small Bowel Bleeding.

The management of patients with small bowel bleeding remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. In most gastrointestinal bleeding episodes, the source of hemorrhage is localized to either the upper gastrointestinal tract or colon; however, in about 5% of cases, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy are nondiagnostic, and the small intestine is the site of bleeding. Patients with suspected small bowel source of bleeding may present with either occult blood loss or recurrent overt gastrointestinal hemorrhage requiring frequent blood transfusions and hospitalizations. Knowing the etiology and site of hemorrhage is essential prior to initiating appropriate therapy. The most common causes of small bowel bleeding are vascular ectasia, tumors, ulcerative diseases, and Meckel's diverticula. For patients with severe obscure bleeding, push enteroscopy with a 220- to 250-cm enteroscope is strongly recommended. This procedure provides not only a thorough examination for diagnosis, but also allows for biopsy, tattooing, and hemostasis of lesions. If enteroscopy is nondiagnostic, capsule endoscopy is recommended. A diagnostic capsule endoscopy will direct appropriate medical, endoscopic, or surgical intervention, depending on whether the lesion is single or multiple, and whether the patient is a surgical candidate for intraoperative enteroscopy. Intraoperative enteroscopy should be strongly considered in patients with recurrent bleeding and a nondiagnostic evaluation. Laparoscopy and intraoperative enteroscopy is highly recommended in young patients (< 50 years of age) because there is an increased frequency of small bowel tumors and Meckel's diverticulum which are amenable to surgical therapy.