The Role of Imaging for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Consensus Recommendations From the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.

The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

Factors affecting Family Physician follow-up 30 days post-discharge from a Canadian Academic Emergency Department.

Close outpatient follow-up of patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) has been associated with improved antimicrobial stewardship, medication compliance, and decreased mortality. Despite these clear benefits, studies have shown most patients do not receive follow-up from specialists or Family Physicians (FP). While age, race and insurance status may be factors in Australia and the United States, there remains a paucity of Canadian studies investigating potential factors that influence follow-up. This retrospective cohort study aimed to elucidate factors associated with Family Physician follow up within 30 days at two urban, academic Family Medicine clinics. Our study included patients aged 18 or older who have an academic Family Physician and visited a London Health Sciences Centre ED between January 1, 2021 and June 1, 2021. A binary logistic regression was used to determine if a specific patient or provider factor was associated with follow-up. Of the 367 cases that met criteria, 220 (60%) patients received Family Physician follow-up within 30 days. Additionally, 51 patients (23%) received specialist follow-up within 30 days. A higher number of medications (OR 1.12 p=0.003) and a Family Physician appointment within the 90 days preceding the ED visit (OR 2.51, p<0.001) were significantly predictive of Family Physician follow-up. The use of a Family Physician referral form, documented discharge instructions, and increasing comorbidity (as documented by the Charlson Comorbidity Index) were not associated with a higher odds of follow-up. These data suggest that patients on numerous medications may require close follow-up for monitoring, dose adjustments, and reassessment. Additionally, those patients with recent Family Physician visits may have stronger relationships with their provider, increasing their likelihood of follow-up. Based on this study, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that documented discharge instructions nor the use of a FP referral form impact the rate of follow-up. Future work should focus on an optimal mechanism to ensure Family Physician follow-up, when required, in urban centres. The impact of mental health and substance use disorders on the rate of follow-up should also be evaluated.

Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated ACG Guideline.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for hospitalization in the United States and is associated with significant utilization of hospital resources, as well as considerable morbidity and mortality. These revised guidelines implement the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools, thresholds for red blood cell transfusion, reversal agents for patients on anticoagulants, diagnostic testing including colonoscopy and computed tomography angiography (CTA), endoscopic therapeutic options, and management of antithrombotic medications after hospital discharge. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools to identify patients with LGIB at low risk of a hospital-based intervention, the role for reversal agents in patients with life-threatening LGIB on vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants, the increasing role for CTA in patients with severe LGIB, and the management of patients who have a positive CTA. We recommend that most patients requiring inpatient colonoscopy undergo a nonurgent colonoscopy because performing an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation has not been shown to improve important clinical outcomes such as rebleeding. Finally, we provide updated recommendations regarding resumption of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications after cessation of LGIB.

Dual-Energy CT Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a potentially life-threatening condition accounting for more than 300 000 annual hospitalizations. Multidetector abdominopelvic CT angiography is commonly used in the evaluation of patients with GI bleeding. Given that many patients with severe overt GI bleeding are unlikely to tolerate bowel preparation, and inpatient colonoscopy is frequently limited by suboptimal preparation obscuring mucosal visibility, CT angiography is recommended as a first-line diagnostic test in patients with severe hematochezia to localize a source of bleeding. Assessment of these patients with conventional single-energy CT systems typically requires the performance of a noncontrast series followed by imaging during multiple postcontrast phases. Dual-energy CT (DECT) offers several potential advantages for performing these examinations. DECT may eliminate the need for a noncontrast acquisition by allowing the creation of virtual noncontrast (VNC) images from contrast-enhanced data, affording significant radiation dose reduction while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. VNC images can help radiologists to differentiate active bleeding, hyperattenuating enteric contents, hematomas, and enhancing masses. Additional postprocessing techniques such as low-kiloelectron voltage virtual monoenergetic images, iodine maps, and iodine overlay images can increase the conspicuity of contrast material extravasation and improve the visibility of subtle causes of GI bleeding, thereby increasing diagnostic confidence and assisting with problem solving. GI bleeding can also be diagnosed with routine single-phase DECT scans by constructing VNC images and iodine maps. Radiologists should also be aware of the potential pitfalls and limitations of DECT. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Restarting Warfarin vs Direct Oral Anticoagulants After Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Associated Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Limited data exist on the management of anticoagulation after hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and the risks of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism in patients who are prescribed warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism with resumption of anticoagulation after GIB. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of adults with atrial fibrillation prescribed warfarin or DOACs and subsequently hospitalized for GIB. We used claims data from IBM MarketScan Databases from January 2008 through December 2017. Multivariable time-varying regression was used to determine the risks of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism within 6 months of the index hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 2991 patients hospitalized for GIB on anticoagulants (warfarin, n = 1872; rivaroxaban, n = 676; dabigatran, n = 293; and apixaban, n = 250). Of warfarin users, 46% (n = 869) resumed warfarin after discharge compared with 43% (n = 483) of DOAC users who resumed DOACs. In the regression analysis modeling time-varying coefficients for anticoagulant use, warfarin resumption was associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% CI, 1.43-3.14; P = .0002) compared with no anticoagulant resumption, whereas there was no association with DOAC resumption and recurrent bleeding (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.81-2.52; P = .22). Rivaroxaban was the only individual DOAC that was associated with recurrent GIB (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.43-5.20; P = .002). Both warfarin (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033) and DOAC (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P = .044) resumption as a class was associated with a decreased risk of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Either warfarin or DOAC resumption after hospitalization for GIB was associated with a decreased risk of thromboembolism, whereas warfarin and rivaroxaban resumption were associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB.

Comparative Efficacy and Rapidity of Action for Infliximab vs Ustekinumab in Biologic Naïve Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative effectiveness has become increasingly important to help position therapies for inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the efficacy and rapidity of onset of action of infliximab vs ustekinumab induction therapy for moderate to severe biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) using patient-level data from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 2 large CD clinical trial programs that included data on 420 biologic-naïve CD patients. Differences in proportions of patients achieving week 6 clinical remission, clinical response, and normalization of calprotectin were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity scores to create a cohort of matched participants with similar distribution of baseline covariates. RESULTS: At week 6, a comparable number of patients achieved clinical remission with infliximab compared with patients treated with ustekinumab (44.9% vs 37.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79-1.89). Similarly, at week 6 the clinical response rates were not significantly different (58.4% infliximab vs 54.9% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.82-1.90). No significant difference was observed between treatment groups for achieving a week 6 fecal calprotectin level less than 250 mcg/L in those with increased values at baseline (42.3% infliximab vs 34.7% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28). Similar results were seen for all analyses performed within the propensity matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this post hoc analysis, infliximab and ustekinumab appear to have similar efficacy and speed of onset in patients with CD who are biologic-naïve.

Deep Learning Computer-aided Polyp Detection Reduces Adenoma Miss Rate: A United States Multi-center Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Study (CADeT-CS Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems are intended to address the issue of missed polyps during colonoscopy. The effect of CADe during screening and surveillance colonoscopy has not previously been studied in a United States (U.S.) population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-center, single-blind randomized tandem colonoscopy study to evaluate a deep-learning based CADe system (EndoScreener, Shanghai Wision AI, China). Patients were enrolled across 4 U.S. academic medical centers from 2019 through 2020. Patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance were randomized to CADe colonoscopy first or high-definition white light (HDWL) colonoscopy first, followed immediately by the other procedure in tandem fashion by the same endoscopist. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate (AMR), and secondary outcomes included sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rate and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: A total of 232 patients entered the study, with 116 patients randomized to undergo CADe colonoscopy first and 116 patients randomized to undergo HDWL colonoscopy first. After the exclusion of 9 patients, the study cohort included 223 patients. AMR was lower in the CADe-first group compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% [34/169] vs 31.25% [45/144]; odds ratio [OR], 1.8048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0780-3.0217; P = .0247). SSL miss rate was lower in the CADe-first group (7.14% [1/14]) vs the HDWL-first group (42.11% [8/19]; P = .0482). First-pass APC was higher in the CADe-first group (1.19 [standard deviation (SD), 2.03] vs 0.90 [SD, 1.55]; P = .0323). First-pass ADR was 50.44% in the CADe-first group and 43.64 % in the HDWL-first group (P = .3091). CONCLUSION: In this U.S. multicenter tandem colonoscopy randomized controlled trial, we demonstrate a decrease in AMR and SSL miss rate and an increase in first-pass APC with the use of a CADe-system when compared with HDWL colonoscopy alone.

Digital Navigation Improves No-Show Rates and Bowel Preparation Quality for Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Quality Improvement Study.

OBJECTIVES: Because of high historical no-show rates and poor bowel preparation quality in our unit, we sought to evaluate whether text message navigation for patients scheduled for colonoscopy would reduce no-show rates and improve bowel preparation quality compared with usual care. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled quality improvement study from April to August 2019 in an urban academic endoscopy unit. All patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to a control group that received usual care (paper instructions/nursing precalls) or to the intervention group that received usual care plus the text message program [short message service (SMS)]. The program provided timed-release instructions on dietary modifications and bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary outcome was no-shows. Secondary outcomes were no-show/same-day cancellations, no-show/cancellations within 7 days of the procedure, and bowel preparation quality. RESULTS: A total of 1625 patients were randomized (SMS=833, control=792). No-show rates were significantly lower in the SMS group compared with the control group (8% vs. 14%; P<0.0001). Similar results were found for no-show/same-day cancellations (10% vs. 16%; P=0.0003), and no-show/cancellations within 7 days (18% vs. 26%; P=0.0008). There was no difference in adequate bowel preparation for all colonoscopies between the groups (89% vs. 87%; P=0.47). However, rates of adequate bowel preparation for screening/surveillance colonoscopies were significantly higher in SMS versus control groups (93% vs. 88%; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Text message navigation for patients scheduled for colonoscopy improved the quality of colorectal cancer screening by decreasing no-show rates and increasing adequate bowel preparation rates in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy compared with usual care.

Impact of Early Video Capsule Endoscopy on Hospitalization and Post-hospitalization Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) has become the accepted evaluation of choice for patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of early as compared to delayed inpatient VCE on post-index hospitalization readmission rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using medical claims from the IBM® Marketscan® Commercial Database from January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2018, including adult patients that underwent an inpatient VCE. Early VCE was defined as occurring on days 0, 1, or 2 of the index hospitalizations, whereas delayed VCE was performed on days 3-7. Propensity matching was performed to create an analytic cohort, and outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Following propensity score matching, 607 patients undergoing early VCE were matched 1:1 with 607 patients undergoing delayed VCE. The median patient age was 65 (IQR: 56-78) years, and 560 (37.9%) of the included patients were female. The mean time to VCE was 1.6 (± 0.6) days for the early VCE group and 4.0 (± 1.2) days from admission for delayed VCE. In unadjusted comparisons, we found no significant difference between early VCE and delayed VCE with respect to 90-day all-cause readmission (18.6% vs. 17.0%, P = 0.5) or 90-day rebleeding risk (10.5% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.331). Patients undergoing an early VCE had a shorter hospital LOS and less total hospitalization charges. CONCLUSION: Early as compared to delayed inpatient VCE was associated with a reduction in index hospitalization resource utilization. No differences were found with respect to reductions in readmissions or rebleeding events.

Anticoagulant Reversal in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Review of Treatment Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving anticoagulant therapies, such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), commonly experience gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding as a complication and may require anticoagulant reversal prior to endoscopic treatment. Anticoagulant reversal agents include prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs; including 3 or 4 coagulation factors), plasma, vitamin K, and target-specific DOAC reversal agents (e.g., idarucizumab and andexanet alfa). AIM: To review current US, as well as international, guidelines for anticoagulant reversal agents in patients on VKAs or DOACs presenting with GI bleeding prior to endoscopy, guideline-based management of coagulation defects, timing of endoscopy, and recommendations for resumption of anticoagulant therapy following hemostasis. Supporting clinical data were also reviewed. METHODS: This is a narrative review, based on PubMed and Internet searches reporting GI guidelines and supporting clinical data. RESULTS: GI-specific guidelines state that use of reversal agents should be considered in patients with life-threatening GI bleeding. For VKA patients presenting with an international normalized ratio > 2.5, guidelines recommend PCCs (specifically 4F-PCC), as they may exhibit greater efficacy/safety compared with fresh frozen plasma in reversal of VKA-associated GI bleeding. For DOAC patients, most guidelines recommend targeted specific reversal agents in the setting of GI bleeding; however, PCCs (primarily 4F-PCC) are often listed as another option. Resumption of anticoagulant therapy following cessation of GI bleeding is also recommended to reduce risks of future thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of anticoagulant reversal agents in GI bleeding is recognized in guidelines; however, such agents should be reserved for use in truly life-threatening scenarios.

Resuming Anticoagulation Following Hospitalization for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Is Associated with Reduced Thromboembolic Events and Improved Mortality: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic anticoagulants are widely prescribed for prevention and treatment of thromboembolism, but are commonly complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Limited data exist on the management of anticoagulation after hospitalization for GIB and the subsequent risks of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to determine risk of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality after resuming anticoagulation following GIB. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in patients with atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, or valvular heart disease who received long-term warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants before experiencing GIB. Studies were included if data were available on anticoagulation management and outcomes of recurrent GIB, thromboembolism, and mortality following GIB. RESULTS: A total of 5354 studies were reviewed of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. There were 2080 patients who resumed anticoagulation and 2296 patients who discontinued anticoagulation post-index GIB. Resumption of anticoagulation was associated with a significant increase in recurrent GIB (OR 1.646, 95% CI 1.035-2.617, p = 0.035). There was a significant decrease in thromboembolic events in patients who resumed anticoagulation compared to those who did not (OR 0.340, 95% CI 0.178-0.652, p = 0.001, I2 = 62.7%). Resumption of anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR 0.499, 95% CI 0.419-0.595, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: While resumption of anticoagulation following index GIB was associated with a significant increase in recurrent GIB, it was also associated with a significant decrease in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

Higher vedolizumab serum levels do not increase the risk of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: Although its mechanism of action may confer a safety benefit, vedolizumab has still been associated with adverse events (AE). We investigated whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with higher trough vedolizumab serum levels experienced an increased risk of AEs.Methods: This was a retrospective study of 76 IBD patients with at least one measurement of serum vedolizumab available. Vedolizumab levels ranged from <3.5 mcg/mL to 87.2 mcg/mL (median = 15.8 mcg/mL). The primary outcome was the rate of overall AEs. Secondary outcomes included the rates of infections, dermatologic reactions, infusion reactions, and other AEs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between serum vedolizumab levels and AEs.Results: 19 patients out of 76 reported AEs. In patients with higher vedolizumab levels, there were 10 AEs reported out of 38 patients, which was not significantly different from the 9 AEs reported in 38 patients with lower vedolizumab levels (26.3% vs. 23.7%, p = .79). After adjustment for potential covariates, IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels did not have higher odds of an AE than patients with lower levels (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30-2.81). Longer duration of therapy had higher odds of AEs, (OR of 1.04 at 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = .0494 per additional month). None of the other variables were associated with a greater risk of AEs.Conclusions: There does not appear to be an increased risk of adverse events in IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels, but duration of therapy may increase the risk of AEs.

PPIs and Beyond: A Framework for Managing Anticoagulation-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Era of COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) can be associated with high morbidity and mortality; patients with severe clinical manifestations may develop significant coagulopathy as well as unexpected thromboembolic complications. In response, centers are increasingly treating selected patients with intermediate-dose prophylactic or even therapeutic dose anticoagulation in order to prevent potentially catastrophic thrombotic complications. With this changing practice, the authors suspect that inpatient gastrointestinal consult teams across the country will be frequently managing COVID-19 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). In order to reduce potentially avoidable hospital readmissions for GIB while improving patient outcomes, it is imperative to appropriately risk-stratify patients prior to initiation of anticoagulation. In this review, we discuss how to appropriately identify high-risk patients for GIB and how to mitigate GIB risk with proton-pump inhibitor co-therapy, medication reconciliation, and Helicobacter pylori testing and treating in this complex and morbid population.

Early Colonoscopy for Diverticular Bleeding Does Not Reduce Risk of Postdischarge Recurrent Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy within 24 hours (early colonoscopy) is recommended for patients with colonic diverticular bleeding, but it is unclear if this strategy improves postdischarge outcomes. We aimed to determine whether early colonoscopy is associated with decreased risk of rebleeding and hospital re-admission within 30 days. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Marketscan (Truven Health Analytics, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI), a nationwide insurance claims database. From January 2004 through September 2015, patients with a primary diagnosis of diverticular bleeding who underwent inpatient colonoscopy were included. We used propensity score matching to account for differences between recipients of early vs delayed colonoscopy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the association between early colonoscopy and rebleeding or hospital re-admission within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: In total, 20,010 patients underwent colonoscopy for diverticular bleeding; 11,690 underwent early colonoscopy. After propensity matching, 8320 pairs of patients were analyzed. In the matched analysis, higher proportions of patients who received early colonoscopy underwent additional colonoscopies (73%), compared with patients who did not receive early colonoscopy (4%) (P < .0001), but lower proportions received endoscopic interventions (3% vs 8%; P < .0001). On multivariable analysis, early colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66; P = .007), transfusion requirement (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83; P < .0001), and baseline chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.49-3.04; P < .0001) were associated with increased risk of rebleeding within 30 days. Early colonoscopy (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03), endoscopic intervention (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .03), transfusion requirement (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.88-2.51; P < .0001), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P = .009), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.54; P < .0001) were associated with increased re-admission to the hospital within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, we associated early colonoscopy with increased risk of rebleeding events and hospital re-admissions. However, these observations might be due to confounding factors.

A risk score to predict the development of hepatic encephalopathy in a population-based cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

Over 40% of patients with cirrhosis will develop hepatic encephalopathy (HE). HE is associated with decreased survival, falls, motor vehicle accidents, and frequent hospitalization. Accordingly, we aimed to develop a tool to risk-stratify patients for HE development. We studied a population-based cohort of all patients with cirrhosis without baseline HE (n = 1,979) from the Veterans Administration from Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2010) using demographic, clinical, laboratory, and pharmacy data. The primary outcome was the development of HE. Risk scores were constructed with both baseline and longitudinal data (annually updated parameters) and validated using bootstrapping. The cohort had a mean age of 58.0 ± 8.3 years, 36% had hepatitis C, and 17% had ascites. Opiates, benzodiazepines, statins, and nonselective beta-blockers were taken at baseline by 24%, 13%, 17%, and 12%, respectively. Overall, 863 (43.7%) developed HE within 5 years. In multivariable models, risk factors (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for HE included higher bilirubin (1.07, 1.05-1.09) and nonselective beta-blocker use (1.34, 1.09-1.64), while higher albumin (0.54, 0.48-0.59) and statin use (0.80, 0.65-0.98) were protective. Other clinical factors, including opiate and benzodiazepine use, were not predictive. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve for HE using the four significant variables in baseline and longitudinal models were 0.68 (0.66-0.70) and 0.73 (0.71-0.75), respectively. Model effects were validated and converted into a risk score. A score ≤0 in our longitudinal model assigns a 6% 1-year probability of HE, while a score >20 assigns a 38% 1-year risk. CONCLUSION: Patients with cirrhosis can be stratified by a simple risk score for HE that accounts for changing clinical data; our data also highlight a role for statins in reducing cirrhosis complications including HE. (Hepatology 2017).

Comparison of clinical prediction tools and identification of risk factors for adverse outcomes in acute lower GI bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Limited data exist on prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB). The purpose of our study was to compare the ability of existing validated clinical risk scores to predict relevant outcomes in LGIB. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of patients admitted with LGIB who underwent colonoscopy at a single center between April 2016 and September 2017. Seven risk scores were calculated at admission (Strate, NOBLADS, Sengupta, Oakland, Blatchford, AIMS65, and Charlson Comorbidity Index). The risk of severe LGIB was determined via univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis was used to compare the scores. RESULTS: We included 170 patients admitted with LGIB requiring colonoscopy. Fifty-two percent (n = 89) fit criteria for severe bleeding. Patients with severe bleeding had lower admission hemoglobin levels (8.6 g/dL vs 11.1 g/dL; P = .0001), were more likely to have blood transfusions (85% vs 36%; P < .0001), intensive care unit stays (49% vs 19%; P < .0001), and had a longer length of stay (6 days vs 4 days; P = .0009). The Oakland score was best for prediction of severe bleeding (AUC, .74), Blatchford score for blood transfusion (AUC, .87), and Strate score for in-hospital recurrent bleeding (AUC, .66) and endoscopic intervention (AUC, .62). The strongest individual predictors of severe bleeding were low admission hemoglobin (odds ratio, 1.28 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .0015; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.49) and low albumin (odds ratio, 2.56 per 1-g/dL decrease; P = .02; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.56). CONCLUSION: Admission albumin and hemoglobin levels were the strongest predictors of severe bleeding. No singular clinical risk tool had the best predictive ability across all outcomes.

Risk Factors for 30-day Hospital Readmission for Diverticular Hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: The 2010 Affordable Care Act introduced the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to reduce health care utilization. Diverticular disease and its complications remain a leading cause of hospitalization among gastrointestinal disease. We sought to determine risk factors for 30-day hospital readmissions after hospitalization for diverticular bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the 2013 National Readmission Database sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality focusing on hospitalizations with the primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of diverticular hemorrhage or diverticulitis with hemorrhage. We excluded repeat readmissions, index hospitalizations during December and those resulting in death. Our primary outcome was readmission within 30 days of index hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes of interest included medical and procedural comorbid risk factors. The data were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 29,090 index hospitalizations for diverticular hemorrhage were included. There were 3484 (12%) 30-day readmissions with recurrent diverticular hemorrhage diagnosed in 896 (3%).Index admissions with renal failure [odds ratio (OR), 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.43], congestive heart failure (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43), chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21), atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22) cirrhosis (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.29-2.93, performance of blood transfusion (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.33), and abdominal surgery (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.49) had increased risk of 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day readmission rate for diverticular hemorrhage was 12% with multiple identified comorbidities increasing readmission risk.

Rebleeding vs Thromboembolism After Hospitalization for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients on Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about outcomes of patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) while they are taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We aimed to determine the frequency at which patients resume DOAC therapy following hospitalization for GIB in a real-world setting, and the risks and benefits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical claims data from the Truven Health Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014. We collected data on 1338 adults treated with DOACs and hospitalized for GIB (dabigatran, n = 679; rivaroxaban, n = 608, apixaban, n = 51). Patients who developed GIB within 1 year of DOAC initiation, and had a DOAC claim filled within 1 month of GIB, were included in the analysis. Postdischarge readmissions due to thromboembolism and recurrent GIB within 90 days were reviewed. We used proportional hazards to identify factors associated with thromboembolism and recurrent GIB. RESULTS: The median age of patients who did not resume DOAC therapy was older (79 vs 78 y for patients who did resume DOAC therapy; P = .0005). Higher proportions of patients who did not resume DOAC had heart failure (25% vs 20% who did resume DOAC therapy; P = .01), received blood (36% vs 24%; P < .0001), and required intensive care (18% vs 12%; P = .003). Restarting DOAC therapy within 30 days was not associated with thromboembolism within 90 days (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.37-2.21) or recurrent GIB (HR, 1.44; 95% CI 0.72-2.68). On multivariate regression, prior venous thromboembolism was associated with postdischarge thromboembolism (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.29-7.38), and thienopyridine use was associated with recurrent GIB (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.55-5.81). A higher proportion of patients who resumed treatment with rivaroxaban, compared with other DOACs, had recurrence of GIB (log rank, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of medical claims data from adults treated with DOACs and hospitalized for GIB, we found that older patients who require blood and intensive care were less likely to restart treatment with DOACs after GIB. Resuming DOAC therapy was not associated with thromboembolism within 90 days or recurrence of GIB; a history of venous thromboembolism and thienopyridine use were associated with a risk of subsequent thromboembolism and GIB respectively.