Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Using Anticoagulants: Does the Timing of Endoscopy Affect Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), early (≤ 24 h) endoscopy is recommended following hemodynamic resuscitation. Nevertheless, scarce data exist on the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with NVUGIB receiving anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: To analyze how the timing of endoscopy may influence outcomes in anticoagulants users admitted with NVUGIB. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study which consecutively included all adult patients using anticoagulants presenting with NVUGIB between January 2011 and June 2020. Time from presentation to endoscopy was assessed and defined as early (≤ 24 h) and delayed (> 24 h). The outcomes considered were endoscopic or surgical treatment, length of hospital stay, intermediate/intensive care unit admission, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: From 636 patients presenting with NVUGIB, 138 (21.7%) were taking anticoagulants. Vitamin K antagonists were the most frequent anticoagulants used (63.8%, n = 88). After adjusting for confounders, patients who underwent early endoscopy (59.4%, n = 82) received endoscopic therapy more frequently (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-5.4; P = 0.034), had shorter length of hospital stay [7 (IQR 6) vs 9 (IQR 7) days, P = 0.042] and higher rate of intermediate/intensive care unit admission (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.3 - 5.9; P = 0.010) than patients having delayed endoscopy. Surgical treatment, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Early endoscopy (≤ 24 h) in anticoagulant users admitted with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with higher rate of endoscopic treatment, shorter hospital stay, and higher intermediate/intensive care unit admission. The timing of endoscopy did not influence the need for surgical intervention, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality.

Identifying inflammatory bowel disease patients at risk of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: usefulness of non-invasive steatosis predictive scores.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients have a higher risk of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) compared with the general population. However, it is not known whether available non-invasive hepatic steatosis scores are useful in predicting MAFLD in IBD patients. We aimed to analyze the performances of MAFLD screening score (MAFLD-S), Fatty Liver Index (FLI), Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI) and Clinical Prediction Tool for NAFLD in Crohn's Disease (CPN-CD), in identifying MAFLD in IBD patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out including consecutive adult IBD outpatients submitted to transient elastography (TE). MAFLD criteria were assessed, and hepatic steatosis (HS) was defined by a controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) >248 dB/m using TE. MAFLD-S, FLI, HSI, and CPN-CD were calculated and their accuracy for the prediction of MAFLD was evaluated through their areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. RESULTS: Of 168 patients, body mass index ≥25, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia and arterial hypertension were present in 76 (45.2%), 10 (6.0%), 53 (31.5%), 20 (11.9%), respectively. HS was identified in 77 (45.8%) patients, of which 65 (84.4%) fulfilled MAFLD criteria. MAFLD-S (AUROC, 0.929 [95% CI, 0.888-0.971]) had outstanding and FLI (AUROC, 0.882 [95% CI, 0.830-0.934]), HSI (AUROC, 0.803 [95% CI, 0.736-0.871]), and CPN-CD (AUROC, 0.822 [95% CI, 0.753-0.890) had excellent discrimination in predicting MAFLD. CONCLUSIONS: MAFLD-S, FLI, HSI and CPN-CD scores can accurately identify MAFLD in IBD patients, allowing the selection of those in whom hepatic steatosis and metabolic risk factors assessment may be particularly beneficial.

Reply to comment on "Ultrasonographic scores for ileal Crohn's disease assessment: better, worse or the same as contrast­enhanced ultrasound?

We read the comments by Nylund K et al. regarding our paper "Ultrasonographic scores for ileal Crohn's disease assessment: Better, worse or the same as contrast­enhanced ultrasound?". Intestinal ultrasound has become one of the most valuable developments in the past decade, a non-invasive, well-tolerated exam, with an easy repeatability, and absence of sedation, ionizing radiation, or preparation. Particularly for inflammatory bowel disease, where there is a lack of agreement of patient's symptoms with disease activity, in an era where the paradigm of mucosal healing is changing to transmural healing, and with the emergence of several therapies leading to repeated imaging surveillance, it is essential to highlight the role of intestinal ultrasound. Although intestinal ultrasound is an increasingly used tool to monitor inflammatory bowel disease activity, there is no widely accepted reproducible activity index, since the methodology for the development of the scores was shown to be insufficient in most studies and none have been adequately validated (Bots et al., J Crohns Colitis 12:920-9, 2018). In our study, we showed that the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) peak enhancement derived from the time-intensity curve (TIC) is a promising non-invasive emerging method with a good accuracy to correlate clinical and endoscopic activity in the terminal ileum, superior to intestinal ultrasound scores relying on bowel wall thickness and colour Doppler.