Vómitos en posos de café y valoración endoscópica precoz. ¿Es realmente el tiempo la clave? / Coffee ground emesis and early endoscopy: Is timing actually relevant?

Objetivo Los vómitos en posos de café son un síntoma clásico de hemorragia digestiva alta. Sin embargo, tienen escasa validez semiológica, dado su conocido bajo valor predictivo positivo. Nuestro objetivo es determinar si realizar una gastroscopia urgente en estos pacientes modifica nuestra conducta terapéutica con impacto real en la morbimortalidad. Pacientes y métodos Se trata de un estudio retrospectivo, observacional y descriptivo en el que se analizaron aquellos pacientes que se realizaron una gastroscopia en nuestro centro por vómitos en posos de café en los últimos 4 años (2017-2021). Se establecieron 2 grupos: endoscopia urgente (primeras 24h) y programada (más de 24h) y se evaluaron las diferencias entre ambos grupos en supervivencia, estancia en la UCI, días de ingreso hospitalario y tasa de resangrado. Resultados Se identificaron 314 pacientes, de los que finalmente se incluyeron 276, perteneciendo 176 al grupo de gastroscopia urgente y 109 al de diferida. No se identificaron diferencias en la tasa de ingreso en la UCI, días de estancia hospitalaria, supervivencia ni resangrado a los 30 días. Tampoco se objetivaron diferencias en la tasa de detección de lesiones potencialmente sangrantes ni en la necesidad de terapéutica endoscópica. Conclusiones Los vómitos en posos de café, sin otros datos clínicos de hemorragia digestiva, no son un indicador fiable de la misma, y la realización de una gastroscopia urgente no aporta beneficios en términos de morbimortalidad. Una estrategia conservadora en estos pacientes permitiría diferir endoscopias, evitando riesgos y ayudando al control de gastos sin incidir en el pronóstico del paciente. (AU)

Objective Coffee ground vomiting is a classical symptom of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the clinical usefulness is limited, due to the low positive predictive value. Our goal is to determine if whether an urgent endoscopy does modify our therapeutic management with a real impact on survival. Patients and methods It is a retrospective, observational and descriptive study. We selected all patients that underwent a gastroscopy in our center for coffee ground vomiting over the last 4 years (2017-2021). Two groups were established: urgent endoscopy (first 24h) and scheduled (over 24h). Then we studied differences between both groups regarding survival, ICU admission, hospitalization days and rebleeding. Results Three hundred and fourteen patients were identified, from which 276 were included, with 176 belonging to the urgency group and 109 to the scheduled group. There were no differences in the ICU admission, hospitalization days, survival or rebleeding after 30 days. There were no differences either in the number of potentially bleeding lesions or the need of endoscopic therapeutic. Conclusions Coffee ground vomiting, without any other data supporting upper gastrointestinal bleeding, does not represent a reliable indicator. Performing urgent endoscopy is not beneficial in terms of morbimortality. Therefore, a more conservative strategy would allow to differ endoscopy, decreasing risks and reducing costs, without affecting the prognosis. (AU)

Coffee ground emesis and early endoscopy: Is timing actually relevant? / Vómitos en posos de café y valoración endoscópica precoz. ¿Es realmente el tiempo la clave?

OBJECTIVE: Coffee ground vomiting is a classical symptom of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the clinical usefulness is limited, due to the low positive predictive value. Our goal is to determine if whether an urgent endoscopy does modify our therapeutic management with a real impact on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It is a retrospective, observational and descriptive study. We selected all patients that underwent a gastroscopy in our center for coffee ground vomiting over the last 4 years (2017-2021). Two groups were established: urgent endoscopy (first 24h) and scheduled (over 24h). Then we studied differences between both groups regarding survival, ICU admission, hospitalization days and rebleeding. RESULTS: Three hundred and fourteen patients were identified, from which 276 were included, with 176 belonging to the urgency group and 109 to the scheduled group. There were no differences in the ICU admission, hospitalization days, survival or rebleeding after 30 days. There were no differences either in the number of potentially bleeding lesions or the need of endoscopic therapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: Coffee ground vomiting, without any other data supporting upper gastrointestinal bleeding, does not represent a reliable indicator. Performing urgent endoscopy is not beneficial in terms of morbimortality. Therefore, a more conservative strategy would allow to differ endoscopy, decreasing risks and reducing costs, without affecting the prognosis.

Risk of COVID-19 transmission in esophageal, anorectal manometry and 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring.

BACKGROUND: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the interruption of most manometry or impedance-pH monitoring studies. The risk of restarting activities is unknown. OBJECTIVE: assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, both to patients and healthcare workers, in relation to esophageal and anorectal functional tests during the pandemic without protective measures. METHOD: a questionnaire was designed to determine whether patients and healthcare workers had COVID-19, confirmed by either a test or compatible symptoms, after functional studies were performed from January until March 2020. RESULTS: the survey was answered by 263 (92.9 %) patients. Four (1.52 %) patients had confirmed COVID-19 in the two weeks after the functional test (adjusted rate 8.34 cases per 1,000 [95 % CI -0.06-16.74], OR 0.84 [95 % CI: 0.83-0.85], p < 0.001) and no patient after anorectal manometry. Another five had only compatible symptoms, for a total of nine patients (3.42 %) (adjusted rate 27.50 cases/1,000 [95 % CI: 7.27-47.74], OR 2.84 [95 % CI: 2.81-2.87]). In the total study period, 18.25 % had confirmed COVID-19 or compatible symptoms. The average number of days between the procedure and the first day of symptoms was progressively shortened (January: 56 days, February: 33 days, March: 10.5 days). Two of ten healthcare workers (20 %) had confirmed COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: the risk of COVID-19 infection when performing functional tests is low and more related to the evolution of the pandemic rather than to the procedure itself. The small number of healthcare workers included in the study does not allow a definitive conclusion to be drawn on their risk of infection.