Optimal timing of simethicone administration prior to upper endoscopy: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims Simethicone is useful as premedication for upper endoscopy because of its antifoaming effects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of timing of simethicone administration on mucosal visibility. Patients and methods In this multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study, patients scheduled for upper endoscopy were randomized to receive 40 mg simethicone at the following time points prior to the procedure: 20 to 30 minutes (early group), 0 to 10 minutes (late group) or 20 mg simethicone at both time points (split-dose group). Images were taken from nine predefined locations in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before endoscopic flushing. Each image was scored on mucosal visibility by three independent endoscopists on a 4-point scale (lower scores indicating better visibility), with adequate mucosal visibility defined as a score ≤ 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with adequate total mucosal visibility (TMV), reached if all median subscores for each location were ≤ 2. Results A total of 386 patients were included (early group: 132; late group: 128; split-dose group: 126). Percentages of adequate TMV were 55%, 42%, and 61% in the early, late, and split-dose group, respectively ( P < 0.01). Adequate TMV was significantly higher in the split-dose group compared to the late group ( P < 0.01), but not compared to the early group ( P = 0.29). Differences between groups were largest in the stomach, where percentages of adequate mucosal visibility were higher in the early (68% vs 53%, P = 0.03) and split-dose group (69% vs 53%, P = 0.02) compared to the late group. Conclusions Mucosal visibility can be optimized with early simethicone administration, either as a single administration or in a split-dose regimen.

Admission time is associated with outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) during the weekend have a worse outcome compared with weekdays, with an increased risk of recurrent bleeding and mortality. AIM: To investigate the association between timing of admission and adverse outcome after UGIB. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of UGIB to the emergency room of eight participating hospitals. Using standard descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses, differences in 30-day mortality, rebleeding rate, and need for angiography and surgical intervention were assessed for week- and weekend admissions and time of admission. Moreover, patient- and procedure-related factors were identified that could influence outcome. RESULTS: In total, 571 patients were included with suspected UGIB. Patient admitted during the weekend had a higher mortality rate than patients admitted during the week [9% vs.3%; adjusted odds ratio 2.68 (95%CI 1.07-6.72)]. Weekend admissions were not associated with other adverse outcomes. Patients admitted during the weekend presented more often with bleeding and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure. No differences were found in procedure-related factors. Time of admission was not associated with an adverse outcome, although patients admitted during the evening had a significantly longer time to endoscopy (15, 22 and 16 h for day, evening and night admissions respectively, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although quality of care did not appear to differ between week/weekend admissions, patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted during the weekend were at higher risk of an adverse outcome. This might be due to the fact that these patients have more severe haemorrhage.

Prediction scores in gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several algorithms predicting outcomes in acute gastrointestinal bleeding have been developed over the past three decades. These algorithms differ substantially and therefore the aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review to compare their predictive performance and methodological quality in gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was performed up to 1 July 2011. All studies reporting prediction scores in gastrointestinal bleeding were included. Studies were analyzed for predictive performance, and a quality appraisal of these rules was performed for which a score range of 0 (lowest) to 29 (highest) was used. RESULTS: A total of 372 studies were identified, of which 16 were eligible for inclusion. The studies evaluated different outcomes: mortality (n = 5), rebleeding (n = 2), intervention required (n = 2), or a combination (n = 7). The predictive performance of the identified prediction scores varied between an area under the curve of 0.71 - 0.92 (if given). The mean overall quality rating was 17 (SD 4.0, range 9 - 25). Major methodological shortcomings were the absence of validation and absence of impact analyses. Eight of 16 scores (50 %) were determined "easy to use," and five scores (31 %) reported some type of action based on the results. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity in outcomes and results was seen in the 16 identified prediction scores. Moreover, the methodological quality was suboptimal in most studies. However, we suggest that clinicians should use the "best available" scores according to performance and quality, which are the Blatchford score to assess the need for intervention, and the scores of Villanueva et al. for poor outcome, Guglielmi et al. for rebleeding, and Chiu et al. for mortality risk.