Clinical Performance of Prediction Rules and Nasogastric Lavage for the Evaluation of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Introduction. The majority of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are admitted for urgent endoscopy as it can be difficult to determine who can be safely managed as an outpatient. Our objective was to compare four clinical prediction scoring systems: Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) and Clinical Rockall, Adamopoulos, and Tammaro scores in a sample of patients presenting to the emergency department of a large US academic center. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients during 2008-2010. Our outcome was significant UGIB defined as high-risk stigmata on endoscopy, or receipt of blood transfusion or surgery, or death. Results. A total of 393 patients met inclusion criteria. The GBS was the most sensitive for detecting significant UGIB at 98.30% and had the highest negative predictive value (90.00%). Adding nasogastric lavage data to the GBS increased the sensitivity to 99.57%. Conclusions. Of all four scoring systems compared, the GBS demonstrated the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value for identifying a patient with a significant UGIB. Therefore, patients with a 0 score can be safely managed as an outpatient. Our results also suggest that performing a nasogastric lavage adds little to the diagnosis UGIB.

The Diagnostic Yield of Repeated Endoscopic Evaluation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common in patients with advanced heart failure. GI bleeding (GIB) occurs in 20-30 % of these patients and can arise anywhere in the GI tract. Given the high rates of GIB in this population, our aim was to determine the diagnostic yield of repeated endoscopic evaluation in these patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all 257 patients who had LVADs placed between 2008 and 2013 at Duke University Hospital and identified all patients who underwent any endoscopic evaluation for GIB. RESULTS: Of the 257 patients with LVADs placed, 78 (30 %) underwent at least one endoscopy for GIB. A source was identified in 36 % of cases, most commonly angioectasias (53.6 %). Treatment was performed in 67.9 % of patients and hemostasis was achieved in all. 64.1 % of the cohort underwent a second endoscopy for GIB. 42.9 % of these exams revealed a bleeding source. Endoscopic treatment was employed in 76.2 %. 38.5 % of the cohort underwent a third endoscopic exam for bleeding and a source was identified in 53.3 % with angioectasias remaining most common (56.3 %). By Fisher's exact and Chi-square testing, only the presence of a bleeding source (p = 0.0034) and use of hemostatic therapy (p = 0.0127) on the index examination were significantly associated with re-bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: GIB is common in patients with LVADs. The diagnostic and therapeutic yield of endoscopy is remains high with repeated interventions. Despite these high yields, a large portion of the cohort requires repeated interventions for recurrent bleeding.

The use of GTX as second-line and later chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: There are limited data regarding the role of second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) after the failure of initial chemotherapy. No data exist on the use of GTX after the failure of first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients who were given GTX chemotherapy for a diagnosis of mPC after the failure of initial therapy. Demographic features, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), response to treatment, and toxicities were recorded. RESULTS: The 59 evaluable patients received a median of 2 prior therapies. Three had no prior gemcitabine. Median PS was 1. Median survival was 22 weeks; progression-free survival was 9.9 weeks. Survival did not correlate with the number of prior regimens but trended with PS. There were no radiologic responses; those with stable disease (n = 21) had a better survival than those with progression (n = 29) or unevaluable patients (n = 9). Median survival was 38.3, 15.0, and 7.4 weeks, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included leucopenia (n = 14), anemia (n = 7), and thrombocytopenia (n = 6). Hospitalizations were required in 21 patients, for febrile neutropenia (n = 7), non-neutropenic infection (n = 3), pulmonary embolus (n = 2), anemia or failure to thrive (n = 9). A 75% drop or more in CA 19-9 correlated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: GTX is an active regimen in patients previously treated with gemcitabine for mPC. Better performance status and >75% drop in pretreatment CA 19-9 were associated with longer survival. The number of prior regimens did not predict for survival duration.