Utility of Endoscopy in Hospitalized Patients with Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage and Pulmonary Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GIH) has been reported as one of the most common GI complications in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). There is paucity of data on the national burden of GIH in patients with PH. We aimed to assess the prevalence, trends and outcomes of endoscopic interventions in patients with PH who were admitted with GIH. METHOD: We queried National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2005 to 2014 and identified the patients hospitalized with primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of PH (ICD 9 CM Code: 416.0, 416.8, and 416.9). Using Clinical Classification Software Coding system (153) patients with concurrent diagnosis of GIH were then identified. We studied the prevalence and trends of GIH in PH, factors associated with GIH, use of endoscopy, factors associated with utilization of endoscopic interventions, endoscopy outcomes including mortality, and overall healthcare burden. RESULTS: Out of 7,586,973 PH hospitalizations 3.2% (N = 246,358) had concurrent GIH, with a rising prevalence of GIH in PH patients during the last decade. Clinical predictors for GIH in PH included older age, congestive heart failure, anticoagulation therapy and concurrent alcohol abuse. Mean length of stay (LOS) in PH patients hospitalized with GIH was significantly higher than without GIH (8.6 vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.01) along with a significant increase in hospitalization cost ($20,189 vs. $14,807, p < 0.01). Similarly, odds of in-hospital mortality increase by ~ 1.5 times in PH patients with GIH than those without it (adjusted odds ratio [aOR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.43-1.47]). Endoscopic interventions were performed in 48.6% of patients with PH and GIH during their hospitalization. Older patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy, as well as the patients who received blood transfusion, and those with hypovolemic shock. Patients with acute respiratory failure and acute renal failure were less likely to get endoscopy. Mean LOS in patients undergoing endoscopic intervention was significantly higher than those who did not receive any intervention (8.7 vs. 8.4 days, p < 0.01), without a substantial increase in hospitalization cost ($20,344 vs. $20,041, p < 0.01). Also, there was a significant decrease in in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing endoscopic interventions. CONCLUSION: Concurrent GIH in patients with PH increases length of stay; healthcare costs and increases in-hospital mortality. Use of endoscopic interventions in these patients is associated with reduced length of stay, in-hospital mortality without significantly increasing the overall health care burden and should be considered in hospitalized patients with PH who are admitted with GIH. Future studies comparing GIH patients with and without PH should be done to assess if PH is a risk factor for worse outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: No IRB required due to use of national de-identified data.

Over-The-Scope Clip system as a first-line therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Effective hemostasis is essential to prevent rebleeding. We evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of the Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC) system compared to combined therapy (through-the-scope clips with epinephrine injection) as a first-line endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 95 patients from a single, tertiary center and underwent either OTSC (n = 46) or combined therapy (n = 49). The primary outcome of the present study was the efficacy of the OTSC system as a first-line therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers compared to combined therapy with TTS clips and epinephrine injection. The secondary outcomes included the rebleeding rate, perforation rate, mean procedure time, reintervention rate, mean procedure cost and days of hospitalization in the two study groups within 30 days of the index procedure. RESULTS: All patients achieved hemostasis within the procedure; two patients in the OTSC group and four patients in the combined therapy group developed rebleeding (p = 0.444). No patients experienced gastrointestinal perforation. OTSC had a shorter median procedure time than combined therapy (11 min versus 20 min; p < 0.001). The procedure cost was superior for OTSC compared to combined therapy ($102,000 versus $101,000; p < 0.001). We found no significant difference in the rebleeding prevention rate (95.6% versus 91.8%, p = 0.678), hospitalization days (3 days versus 4 days; p = 0.215), and hospitalization costs ($108,000 versus $240,000, p = 0.215) of the OTSC group compared to the combined therapy group. CONCLUSION: OTSC treatment is an effective and feasible first-line therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. OTSC confers comparable costs and patient outcomes as combined treatments, with a shorter procedure time.

Endoscopy Is Relatively Safe in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke and Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GIH) is reported to occur in 1-8% of patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). AIS is considered to be a relative contraindication to GIE. AIMS: Evaluate the outcomes of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) in patients hospitalized with AIS and GIH. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with AIS and GIH were included from the National Inpatient Sample 2005-2014. Primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality in patients with AIS and GIH who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Secondary outcomes were (1) resource utilization as measured by length of stay (LOS) and total hospitalization costs and (2) to identify independent predictors of undergoing GIE in patients with AIS and GIH. Confounders were adjusted for by using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 75,756 hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Using a multivariate analysis, the in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who underwent GIE as compared to those who did not [aOR: 0.4, P < 0.001]. Patients who underwent GIE also had significantly shorter adjusted mean LOS [adjusted mean difference in LOS: 0.587 days, P < 0.001]. Patients with AIS and GIH who did not undergo GIE had significantly higher adjusted total hospitalization costs. [Mean adjusted difference in total hospitalization costs was $5801 (P < 0.001).] Independent predictors of undergoing GIE in this population were male gender, age > 65 years, Asian or Pacific race, hypovolemic shock, need for blood transfusion and admission to urban non-teaching hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy can be safely performed in a substantial number of patients with AIS and GIH.

Transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in esophageal varices: a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic treatment is widely accepted as the first-line therapy selection for esophageal variceal bleeding. Nevertheless, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy requires experienced endoscopists and is associated with a high risk of bleeding. Our study evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of esophageal varices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary referral center from April 2015 to May 2016. Patients who received endoscopic sclerotherapy were randomized in a blinded manner into two groups: the transparent cap-assisted group (n=59) and the control group (n=61). RESULTS: The average injection sites were reduced in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with the control group (1.2±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.05, P=0.000), whereas no difference was observed in the dosage of lauromacrogol (16.97±4.91 vs. 16.85±4.57, P=0.662) and the hemorrhage that occurred during injection made no difference (50.8 vs. 61.0%, P=0.276); yet, salvage hemostasis methods were used in only nine patients in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with 17 patients in the control group (25.0 vs. 38.7%, P=0.0936). The cost of each procedure in the cap-assisted group was ¥2578 (1878-4202), whereas it was ¥3691 for the control group (2506-5791) (P=0.023). Moreover, in both groups, no esophageal constriction was observed during the 6-month follow-up period, whereas the rebleeding rate between two groups showed no statistical significance in 6 months (89.8 vs. 93.4%, P=0.563). CONCLUSION: Transparent cap-assisted sclerotherapy provided a clear field of vision and helped to fix the targeted veins, thus significantly reducing the use of the salvage hemostasis method during sclerotherapy injection hemorrhage. It is also associated with reduced injection sites and endoscopic therapy cost.

Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection with Post-injection Audible Doppler Assessment of Gastric Varices: A Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric varices (GV) have higher rates of morbidity and mortality from hemorrhage than esophageal varices. Several studies have shown the safety and efficacy of cyanoacrylate (CA) injection for acute gastric variceal hemorrhage. We report data from our experience with CA injection for GV before and after routine use of post-injection audible Doppler assessment (ADA) for GV obturation and describe long-term outcomes after this therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who had documented GV, underwent CA injection, and had at least 2 weeks of follow-up. We recorded and analyzed the survival and rebleeding rates with patient demographics, clinical data, and endoscopy findings between two groups of patients who were categorized by CA injection prior to and after inception of the ADA technique. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were identified with 16 patients analyzed in a group where ADA was not used (Pre-ADA) and 55 analyzed where ADA was used (Post-ADA). No rebleeding events were observed within 1 week of initial CA injection. No embolic events were reported after any initial CA injection within 4 weeks. The rate of bleed-free survival at 1 year was 69.6% in the Pre-ADA group and 85.8% in the Post-ADA without statistical significance. The all-cause 1-year mortality was 13.8% in the Pre-ADA group and 10.7% in the Post-ADA group without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: ADA of CA-injected GV does not appear to significantly affect adverse events or clinical outcomes; however, our findings are limited by small sample size and cohort proportions allowing for significant type II statistical error. Further prospective investigation is required to determine the impact of ADA on clinical outcomes after GV obturation.

Endoscopic ligation vs. sclerotherapy in adults with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sclerotherapy is a well-established treatment for bleeding esophageal varices, although it has a substantial complication rate. A prospective randomized trial was conducted to determine whether endoscopic variceal ligation is safer and more effective than sclerotherapy in adults with bleeding esophageal varices because of extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent sclerotherapy and 37 had band ligation. RESULTS: Ligation and sclerotherapy were equally effective for achieving variceal eradication (94.6% vs. 91.7%, respectively; p=0.67). However, ligation achieved eradication with fewer endoscopic sessions (3.7 [1.2] vs. 7.7 [3.3]; p <0.0001) and within a shorter time interval (50.1 [17.7] days vs. 99 [54.8] days; p <0.0001). In the ligation group, recurrent bleeding was less frequent (2.7% vs. 19.4%; p=0.028; however, Bonferroni correction for multiple testing removes this significance) and the rate of major complications was lower (2.7% vs. 22.2%; p=0.014). Total cost per patient was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy vs. the ligation group ($216.6 [71.8] vs. $182.6 [63.4]; p=0.035). During the follow-up period after variceal eradication, no significant differences were found between the sclerotherapy and the ligation groups with respect to recurrent bleeding (3% vs. 2.9%; p=1.0), esophageal variceal recurrence (9.1% vs. 11.4%; p=1.0), and formation of new gastric varices (9.1% vs. 14.3%; p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Variceal band ligation is superior to sclerotherapy, because it is less costly and achieves variceal eradication more quickly, with lower relative frequencies of recurrent variceal bleeding and complications.