Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding? / Endoscopia urgente frente a endoscopia precoz: ¿tiene algún papel la endoscopia urgente en la hemorragia digestiva alta aguda no varicosa?

INTRODUCTION: The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008). CONCLUSION: Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy).

Prognostic value of ultrasound activity and parietal healing in patients with Crohn's disease.

INTRODUCTION: the "treat to target" strategy for the management of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) requires simple, reliable and non-invasive tools for continuous monitoring of the disease. Intestinal ultrasound has been proposed as an emerging technique that could be very useful in this field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: patients who had undergone an intestinal ultrasound in the clinical practice between February 2013 and October 2018 at our hospital were retrospectively included. The evolution of the patients during follow-up was assessed based on the presence of ultrasound activity and the therapeutic changes based on the results. RESULTS: two hundred and seventy-seven CD patients were included and the median follow-up time was 24 months (range 5-73 months). Signs of ultrasound inflammatory activity were identified in 166 patients (60 %), and of them, treatment was escalated in 116 patients (70 %) based on the results of the ultrasound. Among patients with identified ultrasound activity, in 166 patients (60 %) the evolution was less favorable than in those without activity, with a shorter time until the next outbreak. Thus, the median disease-free survival (without outbreaks) after performing the ultrasound was 18 months when ultrasound activity was identified (although in most of the patients [70 %] the treatment had been escalated) vs 47 months in patients without ultrasound activity. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Among the 111 patients without ultrasound activity, those who achieved "parietal healing" (74 patients) had a better evolution with a 12 % subsequent outbreak vs 27 % during follow-up (p = 0.05). Thus, 15 % of patients with parietal healing had an outbreak vs 34 % of those who had not normalized the ultrasound findings after three years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: intestinal ultrasound is a technique capable of detecting inflammatory activity in patients with Crohn's disease and the presence of ultrasound activity is a risk factor for a new outbreak of activity and/or clinical relapse. Likewise, the presence of "parietal or transmural healing" (PH) is associated with a better evolution of patients during follow-up. Thus, it could be a more precise objective to consider deep remission in CD, with intestinal ultrasound being a useful technique for this purpose.

Endoscopia urgente frente a endoscopia precoz: ¿tiene algún papel la endoscopia urgente en la hemorragia digestiva alta aguda no varicosa? / Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Introducción: Las principales guías de práctica clínica recomiendan la realización de endoscopia dentro de las 24horas posteriores a la admisión en urgencias en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva alta no variceal. Sin embargo, es un margen de tiempo muy amplio y el papel de la endoscopia urgente (<6horas) es controvertido. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo observacional realizado en Hospital Universitario La Paz, donde son seleccionados todos los pacientes, desde el 1 de enero de 2015 hasta el 30 de abril de 2020, que acudieron a urgencias y fueron sometidos a endoscopia por sospecha de hemorragia digestiva alta. Se establecieron dos grupos de pacientes: endoscopia urgente (<6horas) y precoz (6-24horas). El objetivo primario del estudio fue la mortalidad a los 30días. Resultados: Un total de 1.096 pacientes fueron incluidos, de los cuales 682 fueron sometidos a endoscopia urgente. La mortalidad a los 30 días fue del 6% (5% vs 7,7%, p=0,064) y del resangrado fue del 9,6%. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la mortalidad, resangrado, necesidad de tratamiento endoscópico, cirugía y/o embolización, pero sí en la necesidad de transfusión (57,5% vs 68,4%, p<0,001) y el número de concentrados de hematíes transfundidos (2,85±4,01 vs 3,51±4,09, p=0,008). Conclusión: La endoscopia urgente, en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva alta aguda, también el subgrupo de alto riesgo (GBS ≥ 12), no se asoció con una mortalidad menor a los 30 días que la endoscopia precoz. Sin embargo, en los pacientes con lesiones endoscópicas de alto riesgo (Forrest I-IIB), fue un predictor significativo de menor mortalidad. Por lo tanto, se requieren más estudios para la identificación correcta de pacientes, que se beneficien de esta actitud médica (endoscopia urgente). (AU)

Introduction: The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial. Material and methods: Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality. Results: A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008). Conclusion: Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy). (AU)