|
|
|
|
Research Article
|
|
Independent Predictors of In-hospital Re-bleeding, Need of Operation and Mortality in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding |
|
E. Fattahi,
M.H. Somi,
M.R. Moosapour
and
R.F. Fouladi
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
Prediction of outcome is difficult in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). Some factors have been proposed in this regard with varying accuracy. This study aimed to investigate probable predictors of in-hospital outcome in patients with AUGIB. One hundred sixty four patients with AUGIB were studied prospectively in Tabriz Imam Reza Teaching Centre. All these patients were evaluated endoscopically by an expert. Patients age, gender, presenting complains, transfusion, clinical findings and previous medical history were compared between survived vs. expired, re-bled vs. non re-bled and operated vs. non operated patients. There were 117 males and 47 females with the mean age of 57.12±17.32 (range: 32-78) years in this study. Hematemesis was the sole independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (82.1 vs. 100%; p<0.001). In univariate analysis, however, female gender, major hemorrhage and previous neurological disease were associated with higher rate of expiration. Comparing two re-bled and non re-bled groups, hematemesis (76.5 vs. 95.9%; p = 0.003) and need of transfusion >2U (36.1 vs. 71.4%; p = 0.006) were independent predictors of re-bleeding. In univariate analysis, hematocrit <30%, major hemorrhage and previous history of hepatic disease or hypertension were predictive of re-bleeding. In comparison between operated and non operated groups no significant predictor was detected. In conclusion, this study showed that presence of hematemesis at the time of admission and need of transfusion >2U were independent predictors of poor outcome in patients with AUGIB.
|
|
|
|
|
Received: July 02, 2011;
Accepted: October 11, 2011;
Published: November 24, 2011
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is one of the major underlying
causes of hospitalization in the West with an estimated annual incidence of
0.1%. The reported incidence is wide and is reported to be 50 to 150 episodes
per 100000 individuals per year (Rockall et al.,
1995; Sarkar et al., 1992). Furthermore,
the associated mortality rate ranges between 10-14% in different settings (Braunwald
et al., 2005; Cameron et al., 2002).
However, it is thought that by on-time and appropriate management, such as endoscopic
approaches in the hands of expert endoscopists (Fakheri
et al., 2010), 9 out of 10 patients with even massive AUGIB could
be saved (Kashyap et al., 2005). By now, different
studies have focused on possible prognostic parameters in these patients, albeit
with heterogeneous and inconclusive consequences (Schemmer
et al., 2006). There are various underlying causes for this indefiniteness,
many origins from methodological shortcomings such as retrospective instead
of prospective studies, insufficient power due to small sample size, complexity
of evaluated factors with statistical errors, lack of multivariate analysis,
heterogeneous group of patients, etc. (Gilbert, 1990;
Kalula et al., 2003). An acceptable prognostic
model is believed to be accurate, simply applicable and accurate in different
populations. Available data in this regard, however, mostly lack these specifications
and need to be revised in methodologically proper studies (Badel
et al., 2011; Wee, 2011; Greenspoon
and Barkun, 2010). This study aimed to evaluate most possible prognostic
factors in patients with AUGIB in a prospective setting. In addition to survival,
predictors of re-bleeding and need of operation were also investigated which
have rarely or never been studied in patients with AUGIB.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and patients: In this prospective study, all 182 consecutive
patients with an initial diagnosis of AUGIB referred to emergency department
in Imam Reza Hospital, Tabriz, Iran; were recruited from January 2011 through
the end of June 2011. Patients with AUGIB due to a previous surgery (n = 4)
or endoscopic interventions (n = 2), as well as those with a positive history
of recent anticoagulant use (n = 12) were excluded. This study was approved
by the ethics committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Written consent
was obtained from patients.
Procedures: Hemodynamically unstable patients were temporarily stabilized initially with serum therapy or transfusion of Packed Cells (PC) in emergency department. After thorough examination and taking past medical history, complete blood cell count, as well as determining of blood group, serum glucose, coagulation factors, renal and liver function tests and any other necessary laboratory test as per request of associated physician were performed. All the patients were endoscopically evaluated by a skilled physician.
Variables: Patients age, sex, Age, presenting complains, amount
of transfusion and past medical history including accompanying disease were
documented. These variables were compared within hospital stay period between
survived vs. expired, re-bled vs. non re-bled and operated vs. non operated
cases. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a systolic blood pressure decrease
of at least 20 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure decrease of at least 10 mmHg
and/or increased pulse rate more than 15 beat /min within 3 min after standing
up (Braunwald et al., 2005). Major hemorrhage was
considered when a systolic blood pressure lower than 100 mmHg and/or orthostatic
change were present (Klenzak et al., 1996). All
other terminologies such as AUGIB, re-bleeding, hematemesis, melena, hematochezia,
etc. were defined according to the criteria of American Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopists (ASGE) (Silverstein et al., 1981).
All patients with severe hemorrhage and/or probable esophageal varices were
evaluated endoscopically within 5 h after stabilization and the remaining within
24 h post-admission. Management and treatment of patients was in accordance
with accepted guidelines (Braunwald et al., 2005).
Statistical analysis: Data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software package (version 15.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago). The Chi square or Fishers exact test were employed when appropriate for qualitative data. For quantitative data the Independent samples t-test was used. The logistic regression test was used for multivariate analysis. p-value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS One hundred sixty four patients with AUGIB, 117 males and 47 females with the mean age of 57.12±17.32 (range: 32-78) years were studied. At presentation there were 138 patients with hematemesis, 110 with melena, 16 with hematochezia, 70 with hematocrit level less than 30% and 51 with major hemorrhage (i.e. presence of hypotension, n = 35 and/or orthostatic change, n = 19). Previous accompanying medical conditions were ischemic heart disease (44 patients), hepatic disease (27 patients), neurological disease (24 patients), DM (22 patients), HTN (15 patients), pulmonary disease (6 patients), renal disease (6 patients) and malignancy (8 patients). Transfusion over 2 U of packed red blood cell was indicated in 78 patients. In 35 patients endoscopic treatment was tried, leading to stop of bleeding in 8 patients. Remaining 27 patients underwent open surgery. As a result, 19 patients expired after surgery. Conservative treatments were employed for other 129 cases. Nineteen patients re-bled during hospital stay (Table 1).
Comparing different variables between survived and expired patients showed
comparable results in term of age of patients (>60 year), blood transfusion
(>2U), hematochezia, level of hematocrit (<30%) and previous diseases
except for neurological abnormalities. On the other hand, percentage of female
cases (67.9 vs. 14.8%, p = 0.003), with hematemesis (100 vs. 82.1%, p<0.001),
major hemorrhage (68.4 vs. 26.2%, p<0.001) and neurological disease (31.6
vs. 12.4%, p = 0.04) was significantly higher in expired patients comparing
with survived ones.
Table 1: |
Characteristics and general data of the studied population
with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding |
 |
*Systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg and/or orthostatic changes |
Table 2: |
Comparing variables between survived and expired patients
with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding |
 |
Data presented as frequency (percentage), *Univariate analysis,
**Multivariate analysis, p≤0.05 is statistically significant |
Table 3: |
Comparing variables between patients with and without acute
upper gastrointestinal re-bleeding |
 |
Data presented as frequency (percentage), *Univariate analysis,
**Multivariate analysis, p≤0.05 is statistically significant |
In multivariate analysis, however, only hematemesis was an independent risk
factor of mortality in patients with AUGIB (p<0.001) (Table
2).
In comparing studied variables including age (>60 year), gender, presence
of melena and hematochezia and previous medical conditions except for hepatic
disease and HTN, patients with and without re-bleeding after treatment were
statistically comparable.
Table 4: |
Comparing variables between operated and nonoperated patients
with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding |
 |
Data presented as frequency (percentage), p≤0.05 is statistically
significant |
However, frequency of patients who received blood transfusion more than 2U
(71.4 vs. 36.1%, p<0.001), those with hematemesis (95.9 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.007),
decreased level of hematocrit below 30% (57.1 vs. 35.5%, p = 0.02) and major
hemorrhage (57.15 vs. 19.3%, p<0.001) and with previous history of hepatic
disease (28.6 vs. 10.9%, p = 0.006) and normal blood pressure ( 98% vs. 91.2%,
p = 0.04) was significantly higher in re-bled case than those who did not re-bleed.
Comparing the significantly different variables in multivariate analysis revealed
that only higher blood transfusion (>2U) and presenting with hematemesis
were the independent predictors of re-bleeding in patients with AUGIB (p = 0.006
and 0.03, respectively) (Table 3).
When the studied variables were compared between operated and nonoperated patients, no differenced received a statistically significant level even in univariate analysis (Table 4). DISCUSSION
In the present study, two independent predictors of re-bleeding were identified
in patients with AUGIB including need of transfusion greater than 2 units and
hematemesis as a presenting complain. This is in line with previous reports
indicating that the need of higher load of transfusion is usually a sign of
more mischievous upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (Zaragoza
Marcet et al., 2002; Terdiman and Ostroff, 1997).
However, it is quantified in our study; i.e., >2 unit of packed red blood
cell may predict a poor outcome in terms of retreatment requirement. Zaragoza
Marcet et al. (2002) concluded that initial extensive hemorrhage
may be sign of re-bleeding in patients with AUGIB. This could be considered
equal to hematemesis at presentation which was also an independent predictor
of re-bleeding in our patients. Other parameters such as a decreased hematocrit,
presence of major hemorrhage and a previous history of hepatic and neurological
diseases were only significant predictors of re-bleeding in univariate analysis.
These findings were confirmed in other studies, as well (Adamopoulos
et al., 2003; Arora et al., 2002;
Blatchford et al., 2000; Al-Akeely
et al., 2004; Zuckerman, 2000). In the current
study, presence of hematemesis at admission was the sole independent risk factor
for in-hospital mortality in patients with AUGIB; whereas female gender, major
hemorrhage and previous renal disease were just dependent predictors of poor
outcome. In agreement with our result, Mavares et al.
(1993) also found that patients with AUGIB and initial hematemesis, poor
outcome is more expected than those without hematemesis on presentation. This
finding might be justified by this fact that hematemesis is a sign of massive
hemorrhage in AUGIB. In the present study, major hemorrhage was incorporated
into model as a systolic blood pressure lower than 100 mmHg and/or presence
of orthostatic change (Klenzak et al., 1996).
This approach takes both factors in to account as a single parameter and hence,
possibility of type II error would be declined. Indeed, this error is a major
limitation of many previous reports which investigated possible predictors of
outcome in patients with AUGIB. There was no significant difference between
operated and nonoperated patients with regard to the studied variables in present
study. To the best of our knowledge, there is no similar report in the literature.
Low number of operated cases could be regarded as a limitation of our study.
So, further studies with larger sample size could further elucidate the issue.
We acknowledge short follow-up of patients. However, it should be born in mind
that in-hospital prognosis constitutes a very important share of debates on
patients with AUGIB. This was appropriately covered in this prospective, methodologically
fitted survey.
CONCLUSION Initial hematemesis and need of transfusion >2U are two important and independent predictors of poor outcome in short-term in patients with AUGIB. As the booth factors could readily be documented at the time of admission, they could be considered as simple and handy indicators to identify high risk patients.
|
REFERENCES |
1: Adamopoulos, A.B., N.M. Baibas, S.P. Efstathiou, D.I. Tsioulos, A.G. Mitromaras, A.A. Tsami and T.D. Mountokalakis, 2003. Differentiation between patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who need early urgent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and those who do not. A prospective study. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., 15: 381-387. PubMed |
2: Al-Akeely, M.H., M.K. Alam, S.M. Al-Salamah, M.A. Abdu, I.N. Al-Teimi and A.A. Mohammed, 2004. Initial factors predicting rebleeding and death in bleeding peptic ulcer disease. Saudi Med. J., 25: 642-647. PubMed |
3: Arora, N.K., S. Ganguly, P. Mathur, A. Ahuja and A. Patwari, 2002. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Etiology and management. Indian J. Pediatr., 69: 155-168. CrossRef |
4: Badel, S., G. Dorta and P.N. Carron, 2011. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Usefulness of prognostic scores. Rev. Med. Suisse., 7: 1574-1578. PubMed |
5: Blatchford, O., W.R. Murray and M. Blatchford, 2000. A risk score to predict need for treatment for uppergastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet, 356: 1318-1321. CrossRef |
6: Braunwald, E., A.S. Fauci, D.L. Kasper, S. Hauser, D. Longo and J.L. Jameson, 2005. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 16th Edn., McGraw Hill Medical Publishing Division, USA., ISBN-13: 978-0071402354, Pages: 2607
7: Cameron, E.A., J.N. Pratap, T.J. Sims, S. Inman, D. Boyd, M. Ward and S.J. Middleton, 2002. Three-year prospective validation of a pre-endoscopic risk stratification in patients with acute upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., 14: 497-501. Direct Link |
8: Fakheri, H.T., A.Z. Kiasari, T. Taghvaii, V. Hosseini, R.A. Mohammadpour et al., 2010. Assessment the effect of midazolam sedation on hypoxia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 13: 152-157. CrossRef | Direct Link |
9: Gilbert, D.A., 1990. Epidemiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointest. Endosc., 36: S8-S13. PubMed |
10: Greenspoon, J. and A. Barkun, 2010. A summary of recent recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Pol. Arch. Med. Wewn., 120: 341-346. PubMed | Direct Link |
11: Kalula, S.Z., G.H. Swingler and J.A. Louw, 2003. Clinical predictors of outcome in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. S. Afr. Med. J., 93: 286-290. PubMed |
12: Kashyap, R., S. Mahajan, B. Sharma, P. Jaret, R.K. Patial, S. Rana and L.S. Pal, 2005. A clinical profile of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding at moderate altitude. JIACM., 6: 224-228. Direct Link |
13: Klenzak, J.S., N.J. Shaheen, I.S. Grimm and S.J. Furs, 1996. The baylor score does not predict rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal. Endoscopy., 43: 352-352.
14: Mavares, J., F. Ramirez, C. Cifuentes, J. Voso, W. Monasterios, H. Hinestrosa and E. Quiros, 1993. Clinical and prognostic factors of mortality in upper digestive hemorrhage. G. E. N., 47: 199-203. PubMed |
15: Rockall, T.A., R.F. Logan, H.B. Devlin and T.C. Northfield, 1995. Incidence of and mortality from acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. Steering Committee and members of the National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage. BMJ., 311: 222-226. PubMed | Direct Link |
16: Sarkar, M.R., H.F. Kienzle and R. Bahr, 1992. Can endoscopic methods decrease the mortality and complication rate of bleeding stomach and duodenal ulcer? A study of the literature. Leber. Magen. Darm., 22: 10-12, 15-18. PubMed |
17: Schemmer, P., F. Decker, G. Dei-Anane, V. Henschel, K. Buhl, C. Herfarth and S. Riedl, 2006. The vital threat of an upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Risk factor analysis of 121 consecutive patients. World J. Gastroenterol., 12: 3597-3601. PubMed |
18: Silverstein, F.E., D.A. Gilbert, F.J. Tedesco, N.K. Buenger and J. Persing, 1981. The national ASGE survey on upper gastrointestinal bleeding. II. Clinical prognostic factors. Gastrointest. Endosc., 27: 80-93. PubMed |
19: Terdiman, J.P. and J.W. Ostroff, 1977. Risk of persistent or recurrent and intractable upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the era of therapeutic endoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol., 92: 1805-1811. PubMed |
20: Wee, E., 2011. Management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J. Postgraduate Med., 57: 161-167. CrossRef | PubMed |
21: Zaragoza Marcet, A., J.M. Tenias Burillo and M.J. Llorente Melero, 2002. Pre-endoscopic prognostic factors in non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Development of a predictive algorithm. Rev. Esp. Enferm. Dig., 94: 139-148. PubMed | Direct Link |
22: Zuckerman, G.R., 2000. Acute gastrointestinal bleeding: Clinical essentials for the initial evaluation and risk assessment by the primary care physician. J. Am. Osteopath. Assoc., 100: S4-S7. PubMed | Direct Link |
|
|
|
 |