The optimal timing for high-risk patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) remains uncertain. The study aimed to evaluate whether the timing of endoscopy influences outcomes in high-risk patients with AUGIB.

We conducted a retrospective, international, multicenter cohort study. High-risk patients (Glasgow-Blatchford score >7 points) with AUGIB, who underwent therapeutic endoscopy between September and December 2023 (n=511), were recruited. Patients were classified into three groups based on endoscopic timing: urgent (t≤6h), early (624h). Using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses, we identified the optimal timing for endoscopy and analyzed its association with 30-day outcomes, adjusting for confounding factors.

The results showed that urgent timing (n=130) was associated with worse outcomes compared to early (n=205) and elective (n=176) endoscopy, including higher 30-day all-cause mortality (p=0.047), increased rates of repeat endoscopy (p=0.034), higher 30-day transfusion rates (p=0.021), and longer lengths of stay (p=0.038). These findings were particularly consistent among patients admitted with non-variceal bleeding. In the multivariate analysis, urgent endoscopy (OR 2.47, 1.28-4.57), Charlson index (OR 1.39, 1.01-1.93), systolic blood pressure <90mmHg (OR 3.66, 1.44-9.31), tachycardia (OR 1.02, 1.01-1.05), and malignancy (OR 1.68, 1.37-7.73) were identified as worse prognostic factors.

High-risk patients with AUGIB who underwent urgent endoscopy exhibited worse outcomes, particularly those patients with non-variceal bleeding. Comorbidities, shock, urgent endoscopy and malignancy were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality. These findings highlight the importance of prior resuscitation, pharmacotherapy, and early endoscopy.

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common adverse event following colonic polypectomy, yet its management remains highly heterogeneous and lacks standardization. A considerable number of colonoscopies performed for DPPB may be unnecessary and do not result in hemostatic intervention.

To develop evidence-based statements to guide clinical decision-making in DPPB.

Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement.

A panel of 29 experts in gastroenterology, hematology, radiology, and surgery was assembled. Through a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process, consensus statements were developed through iterative rounds of anonymous voting. Statements were revised following anonymous voting and feedback at each round. Those achieving 80% agreement were accepted.

The expert panel reached a consensus on 36 statements, covering areas such as antithrombotic management, bowel preparation, colonoscopy indications, and therapeutic hemostatic modalities. Key recommendations include guidance for managing self-limited bleeding and risk stratification to reduce the rate of unnecessary colonoscopies, as well as recommendations for hemodynamically unstable patients who may require primary angioembolization. A practical clinical algorithm is proposed.

This document provides a consensus-based framework for managing DPPB. These recommendations aim to improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resources while fostering a standardized approach to this common adverse event.

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication associated with warfarin use. However, the optimal approach for anticoagulation reversal-whether with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), vitamin K (intravenous or oral), or no reversal-remains unclear as current literature and society guidelines do not provide definitive recommendations.

A retrospective analysis of emergency department patients with warfarin-associated GIB who presented to an academic health system was performed, comparing reversal with PCC, FFP, vitamin K only, or no reversal agent. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included rebleeding events and 30-day thrombotic events. Standardized guidelines for reporting were followed (STROBE).

Of 815 patients, within 12 h of presentation, 10.7 % received reversal with PCC (with or without vitamin K), 12.9 % with FFP (with or without vitamin K), and 34.9 % with vitamin K alone; 41.5 % of patients received no reversal agent. Compared to all other groups, patients receiving PCC had significantly higher 30-day mortality (18.4 % [PCC] vs 5.7 % [FFP] vs 4.6 % [vitamin K] vs 5.6 % [no reversal], p < 0.001), which remained significant after adjusting for hemodynamic instability and ICU admission. There were no significant differences in rates of thrombotic event within 30 days (3.4 % vs 3.8 % vs 1.4 % vs 1.2 %, p = 0.20).

Patients who received PCC had a threefold increase in mortality compared to FFP, vitamin K alone, or no reversal, even after adjusting for severity of the bleeding. Further research is necessary to understand factors leading to this observed mortality difference among patients with warfarin related GIB.

 Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common condition linked to increased morbidity, healthcare costs, and mortality. Currently, no prospectively validated prognostic model exists to predict mortality in patients with LGIB. Our aim was to develop and validate a risk score that could accurately predict in-hospital mortality of patients admitted for LGIB.

 Patient data from a nationwide cohort study in 15 centers in Italy (2019-2020) were used to derive the risk score, the Acute Lower gastrointestinal Bleeding and In-hospital mortality (ALIBI) score; the model was then externally validated in a cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for LGIB in 12 centers from six countries (Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Iran, and Brazil) from 2022 to 2024. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality; we also reported rebleeding rates and the in-hospital mortality rate stratified by risk score and timing of colonoscopy. RESULTS : Among 1198 patients in the derivation cohort, 105 (8.8%) re-bled and 41 (3.4%) died. Age, Charlson Co-morbidity Index, in-hospital onset, hemodynamic instability, and creatinine level were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. The model demonstrated excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve [AUROC] 0.81, 95%CI 0.75-0.87) and calibration. In the validation cohort (n = 752 patients), the model's good discrimination (AUROC 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) and calibration were confirmed. Patients were categorized as low (0-4 points; 1% mortality), intermediate (5-9 points; 4.6% mortality), or high risk (10-13 points; 19.1% mortality). CONCLUSION : A new validated score effectively predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with LGIB, aiding in their risk stratification and management.

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in geriatric patients. Risk stratification tools such as AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS), T-score, and Age, Blood tests, and Comorbidities (ABC) score are frequently used to predict outcomes in PUB patients. This study aims to compare the predictive performance of these four scoring systems in geriatric patients with PUB.

This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with PUB between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2024, in a tertiary care hospital. Data collected included demographic information, clinical presentation, laboratory results, and comorbidities. AIMS65, GBS, T-Score, and ABC score were calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

A total of 315 patients were included in the study, with an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 7.9%. AIMS65 had the highest area under the curve (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.829), followed by the ABC score (AUROC: 0.775). The GBS (AUROC: 0.694) and T-score (AUROC: 0.526) demonstrated lower predictive performance. Pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the AIMS65 and GBS (p = 0.0214). AIMS65 was the most accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality in geriatric PUB patients.

The AIMS65 and ABC scoring systems are more effective in predicting in-hospital mortality in geriatric patients with PUB compared to the GBS and T-Score. Implementing these tools in clinical practice could improve risk stratification and decision-making processes in managing high-risk elderly patients.

Upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding (UGIB) is an significant cause of admission to emergency departments and hospitalizations.

The aim of our study was to compare the pre-endoscopic risk scores used in the literature with our new score (AS score) in patients admitted to the emergency department due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

A total of 541 patients admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital due to UGIB were included in the study. Pre-endoscopic risk scores and AS score were compared in terms of the need for hospitalization, need for intensive care, need for endoscopic treatment, and mortality.

All of the scores analysed in the study were found to be effective in predicting the need for hospitalization, the need for intensive care, the need for endoscopic treatment, and mortality. The most effective score in predicting mortality was the AS score. In addition, the sensitivity of the AS score was higher than the other scores in predicting the need for intensive care.

The AS score is a new tool that may be useful in the management of patients admitted to the emergency department due to UGIB because of its advantages, such as not including laboratory parameters, being calculated in a very short time in the triage area at the time of patient presentation, and being integrated with the Charlson comorbidity index.

Rapid and accurate identification of high-risk acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) patients is essential. We developed two machine-learning (ML) models to calculate the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted due to overt GIB. We analyzed the prospective, multicenter Hungarian GIB Registry's data. The predictive performance of XGBoost and CatBoost machine-learning algorithms with the Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall and ABC scores were compared. We evaluated our models using five-fold cross-validation, and performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, we included 1,021 patients in the analysis. In-hospital death occurred in 108 cases. The XGBoost and the CatBoost model identified patients who died with an AUC of 0.84 (CI:0.76-0.90; 0.77-0.90; respectively) in the internal validation set, whereas the GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall clinical scoring system's performance was significantly lower, AUC values of 0.68 (CI:0.62-0.74) and 0.62 (CI:0.56-0.67), respectively. ABC score had an AUC of 0.77 (CI:0.71-0.83). The XGBoost model had a specificity of 0.96 (CI:0.92-0.98) at a sensitivity of 0.25 (CI:0.10-0.43) compared with the CatBoost model, which had a specificity of 0.74 (CI:0.66-0.83) at a sensitivity of 0.78 (CI:0.57-0.95). XGBoost and the CatBoost models evaluate the mortality risk of acute GI bleeding better, than the conventional risk assessment tools.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.

Adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.

A total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).

The present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.

The incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding is on the rise, prompting the creation of various scoring systems to forecast patient's outcomes. But there is no single unified scoring system and these scoring systems clinical data are small and not worldwide.

To evaluate how different scoring systems predict mortality and prolonged hospital stay (≥ 10 days).

A retrospective review was conducted on the medical records of 4417 patients who presented with hematochezia at the emergency department from January 2016 to December 2022. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of various scoring systems for 30-day mortality and prolonged hospital stay (≥ 10 days) by analyzing the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves, taking into account factors such as patient age, laboratory findings, and comorbidities (ABC); AIMS 65; Glasgow-Blatchford; Oakland; Rockall(pre-endoscopy); SHA2PE; and CHAMPS scores.

We analyzed data from 1000 patients (mean age 66 years, 56.1% men, mean hospital stay 9.4 days) with lower gastrointestinal bleeding confirmed by any other means including DRE, colonoscopy and CT. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.7%. The primary etiologies of lower gastrointestinal bleeding were identified as ischemic colitis and diverticular bleeding, accounting for 18.8% and 18.5% of cases, respectively. In terms of forecasting 30-day mortality, the AIMS 65, CHAMPS, and ABC scoring systems demonstrated superior performance (p < 0.001). For predicting prolonged hospital stay, the SHA2PE score exhibited the highest accuracy among all evaluated systems (p < 0.001).

The newly developed scoring systems demonstrated superior accuracy in forecasting outcomes for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and the results of this study demonstrate that these scoring systems can be applied in clinical practice.

Early prognostic stratification could optimize the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of existing prognostic scores in predicting therapeutic intervention and death.

A systematic search of the literature identified existing prognostic scores. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite including therapeutic intervention within 7 days (blood transfusion, endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology hemostasis) and/or 30-day death. Discrimination performance was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). The ability to identify low-risk patients was analyzed using sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for defined thresholds.

The systematic search identified 39 prognostic scores, 12 of which could be analyzed. Among the 990 patients included, therapeutic intervention and/or death occurred in 755 (76.4%) patients. Scores with the highest discriminative performance to predict the primary composite outcome were Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (AUC 0.869 [0.842 to 0.895]), modified GBS (AUC 0.872 [0.847 to 0.898]) and modified GBS 2 (AUC 0.855 [0.827 to 0.884]). The best performance to identify low-risk patients was for GBS≤1 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.99 to 1.00], NPV 0.89 [0.75 to 0.97]) and modified GBS=0 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00], NPV 0.84 [0.71 to 0.94]).

The GBS and the modified GBS are the 2 best performing scores because they achieve both key objectives: stratifying patients based on their risk of therapeutic intervention and/or death and identifying low-risk patients who may qualify for outpatient management.

Antithrombotic drugs pose a dual challenge to acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, with associated risks of bleeding complications and thromboembolic events upon withdrawal. We aimed to determine the impact of antithrombotic medications on in-hospital and delayed outcomes and whether suspension and resumption influenced delayed mortality.

This study was a prospective registry analysis of patients between 2013-2021. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets were classified as antithrombotic. The examined outcomes included in-hospital mortality and delayed 6-month cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality events.

A total of 1345 patients were included. 21.7% were taking anticoagulants and 19.1% were taking antiplatelets. Patients on antithrombotic therapy have a longer delay in endoscopic performance (11 ± 11 h vs. 9.6 ± 8 h; p = 0.027) and less need for therapy (38.5% vs. 48.1%;p = 0.002), with gastric erosion being more usual (14.2% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.006).In-hospital mortality was higher in patients not taking antithrombotic (12% vs. 8%;p = 0.022) and suspension < 72 h was associated with increased mortality (14.9% vs. 2.3%;p = 0.001).Delayed mortality was higher in patients taking antithrombotic (9.4% vs. 6%; p=0.034) and in those who suspended them for more than 7days (17% vs. 8.7%; p=0.033), with no differences when it lasted<72h.Patients on antithrombotic therapy exhibited more delayed cardiovascular (13.7% vs. 3.4%; p<0.0001) and hemorrhagic events (22.9% vs. 12.9%; p<0.0001), with no differences observed in patients who withheld antithrombotic medication.Multivariate analysis identified ASA, disseminated malignancy, and NSAIDs as independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality, whereas antithrombotic therapy and hemoglobin levels were protective factors.

Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding treated with antithrombotic drugs had lower in-hospital mortality despite increased comorbidities and older age. Conversely, delayed 6-month mortality was higher. Shorter antithrombotic suspension durations increased in-hospital mortality, whereas suspension for > 7 days increased delayed mortality.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) exhibit varying tolerances to acute blood loss. We aimed to investigate the effect of relative Hb decrease (ΔHb%) on GIB outcomes. Participants enrolled in the Hungarian GIB Registry between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. The primary outcome, defined as a composite endpoint, included in-hospital bleeding-related mortality and the need for urgent intervention. Four groups were created based on the lowest Hb measured during hospitalization (nadirHb), along with four subgroups categorized by ΔHb%. Regardless of the nadirHb, participants with higher ΔHb% had a higher probability of reaching the composite endpoint. A 30-40% ΔHb% decrease to a nadirHb of 80-90 g/L resulted in a similar likelihood of reaching the primary endpoint as a 0-10% ΔHb% to 70-80 g/L or 60-70 g/L, respectively (10% vs. 12%, p = 1.00; 10% vs. 10%, p = 1.00). Our results showed that a higher Hb decrease in GIB is associated with an increased untoward outcome rate even when the lowest hemoglobin exceeds the recommended transfusion thresholds. New randomized controlled trials investigating transfusion thresholds should consider ΔHb% as a potential key variable and risk factor.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) still has a mortality rate of about 10%. Several pre-endoscopy scoring systems have been developed to predict the outcome, but none accurately predict mortality. The present study was aimed at comparing the new ABC score (age, blood tests and comorbidities) with other pre-existing scoring systems to predict mortality.

This prospective single-center study was done at a tertiary hospital in India in 2022-2023. Patients > 18 years presenting with UGIB within 48 hours were included in the study. They were divided into variceal and non-variceal UGIB cohorts and were followed for 30 days after receiving standard-of-care treatment.

Out of 296 patients, 168 (56.7%) had variceal (V) bleed, while 128 (43.2%) individuals had a non-variceal (NV) type of GI bleed. The mortality rate was 9.8% (n = 29), which was higher among the V bleed group compared to the NV bleed group (8.7% vs. 1.1%). The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) for ABC score was the highest (0.75) compared to other scoring systems and was also more significant among deaths related to V bleed (0.76) than NV bleed (0.64). Hypoalbuminemia and > 3 blood transfusions are significant factors in predicting mortality.

Our study demonstrates that the ABC score is superior to other scores in predicting 30-day mortality in patients with UGIB. ABC score may be a better predictor of mortality among V bleed patients than NV bleeds.

The study aims to develop and validate a predictive model for effectively predicting in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit due to Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including data from patients in the Electronic Intensive Care Unit Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV Database (MIMIC-IV) with a diagnosis of GIB. Patients from the eICU-CRD were randomly allocated into both development and validation sets, and those from MIMIC-IV were assigned as an external validation group. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to create a predictive model, which was depicted as a nomogram. This study included a total of 2929 patients with GIB from the eICU-CRD and 718 patients from the MIMIC-IV. To access the dynamic nomogram, please use the following link: https://kangzou.shinyapps.io/DynNomapp_GIB/ . The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the nomogram was 0.893 in the development set, 0.860 in the internal validation set, and 0.781 in the external validation set. The mortality rate was 25.7% in the high-risk group (nomogram scores > 101.974) and 2.8% in the low-risk group (nomogram scores ≤ 101.974). The nomogram exhibited excellent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility in predicting in-hospital mortality among patients admitted to the intensive care unit with GIB.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a critical emergency. Conventional scoring models for patients with UGIB have limitations; thus, more suitable tools for the Emergency Department are necessary. We aimed to develop a new model that can identify significant predictors of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission in Emergency Department patients with UGIB and to compare its predictive accuracy with that of existing models. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with UGIB treated between January 2020 and July 2022 at the Emergency Department of a single tertiary medical center. Using multivariable logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), we developed a new model to predict the probability of ICU admission. Among 433 patients, multiple logistic regression analysis identified sex, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin level, platelet count, alanine transaminase level, and prothrombin time as significant predictors of ICU admission. Our model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy with an AUROC of 0.8539 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8078-0.8999), outperforming the Glasgow-Blatchford score and AIMS65 score, which had AUROCs of 0.7598 (95% CI: 0.7067-0.8130) and 0.6930 (95% CI: 0.6324-0.7537), respectively. We implemented this model in a user-friendly calculator for clinical use. We identified key predictors of ICU admission that are crucial for hemodynamic stabilization in patients with UGIB. Our model, combined with this probability calculator, will enhance clinical decision-making and patient care for UGIB in emergency settings.

Various scoring systems have been developed to predict outcomes in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). However, their accuracy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare and validate the predictive performance of several established scoring systems in patients with NVUGIB: Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the age, blood tests, and comorbidities (ABC), mental status-anesthesiologist score-pulse-albumin-systolic blood pressure-hemoglobin (MAP(ASH)), Japanese, and Charlson comorbidity index-in-hospital onset-albumin-mental status-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status-steroids (CHAMPS) scores. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,241 patients who presented to the emergency department with NVUGIB and subsequently required hospitalization. Each scoring system was evaluated for its ability to predict in-hospital mortality, rebleeding, and the need for radiological or surgical intervention. The ABC score showed the highest accuracy in predicting in-hospital mortality. The MAP(ASH) score was the most effective predictor of rebleeding and the need for interventions. Different scoring systems have been optimized for various clinical outcomes. The ABC score was the best for predicting mortality, whereas the MAP(ASH) score excelled in identifying rebleeding risks and intervention needs. The selection of an appropriate scoring tool based on specific clinical scenarios can improve patient management and resource allocation in NVUGIB.

Guidelines recommend use of risk stratification scores for patients presenting with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) to identify very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from emergency departments. Machine learning models may outperform existing scores and can be integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) to provide real-time risk assessment without manual data entry. We present the first EHR-based machine learning model for GIB.

The training cohort comprised 2546 patients and internal validation of 850 patients presenting with overt GIB (ie, hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia) to emergency departments of 2 hospitals from 2014 to 2019. External validation was performed on 926 patients presenting to a different hospital with the same EHR from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of red blood cell transfusion, hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, interventional radiologic, or surgical), and 30-day all-cause mortality. We used structured data fields in the EHR, available within 4 hours of presentation, and compared the performance of machine learning models with current guideline-recommended risk scores, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Oakland Score. Primary analysis was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Secondary analysis was specificity at 99% sensitivity to assess the proportion of patients correctly identified as very low risk.

The machine learning model outperformed the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001) and Oakland Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001). At the very-low-risk threshold of 99% sensitivity, the machine learning model identified more very-low-risk patients: 37.9% vs 18.5% for Glasgow-Blatchford Score and 11.7% for Oakland Score (P < .001 for both comparisons).

An EHR-based machine learning model performs better than currently recommended clinical risk scores and identifies more very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from the emergency department.

The management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) requires intricate clinical decision-making to optimize outcomes. In everyday clinical practice, physicians undergo difficult choices to better manage patients with AF. They need to balance thromboembolic and bleeding risk to focus on patients' symptoms and to manage a variety of multiple comorbidities. In this review, we aimed to explore the multifaceted dimensions of clinical decision-making in AF patients, encompassing the definition and diagnosis of clinical AF, stroke risk stratification, oral anticoagulant therapy selection, consideration of bleeding risk, and the ongoing debate between rhythm and rate control strategies. We will also focus on possible grey zones for the management of AF patients. In navigating this intricate landscape, clinicians must reconcile the dynamic interplay of patient-specific factors, evolving guidelines, and emerging therapies. The review underscores the need for personalized, evidence-based clinical decision-making to tailor interventions for optimal outcomes according to specific AF patient profiles.

Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) is a common medical emergency in clinical practice. While the incidence has significantly reduced, the mortality rates have not undergone a similar reduction in the last few decades, thus presenting a significant challenge. This editorial outlines the key causes and risk factors of ANVUGIB and explores the current standards and recent updates in risk assessment scoring systems for predicting mortality and endoscopic treatments for achieving hemostasis. Since ANUVGIB predominantly affects the elderly population, the impact of comorbidities may be responsible for the poor outcomes. A thorough drug history is important due to the increasing use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants in the elderly. Early risk stratification plays a crucial role in deciding the line of management and predicting mortality. Emerging scoring systems such as the ABC (age, blood tests, co-morbidities) score show promise in predicting mortality and guiding clinical decisions. While conventional endoscopic therapies remain cornerstone approaches, novel techniques like hemostatic powders and over-the-scope clips offer promising alternatives, particularly in cases refractory to traditional modalities. By integrating validated scoring systems and leveraging novel therapeutic modalities, clinicians can enhance patient care and mitigate the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with ANVUGIB.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common cause of hospitalization. Recent guidelines recommend the use of prognostic scales for risk stratification. However, it remains unclear whether risk scores are more accurate than some simpler prognostic variables.

To compare the predictive values of haemoglobin alone and the Oakland score for predicting outcomes in ALGIB patients.

Single-centre, retrospective study at a University Hospital. Data were extracted from the hospital's clinical records. The Oakland score was calculated at admission. Study outcomes were defined according to the original article describing the Oakland score: safe discharge (the primary Oakland score outcome), transfusion, rebleeding, readmission, therapeutic intervention and death. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve and accuracy using haemoglobin and the Oakland score were calculated for each outcome.

Two hundred and fifty-eight patients were included. Eighty-four (32.6%) needed transfusion, 50 (19.4%) presented rebleeding, 31 (12.1%) required therapeutic intervention, 20 (7.8%) were readmitted and six (2.3%) died. There were no differences in the AUROC curve values for haemoglobin versus the Oakland score with regard to safe discharge (0.82 (0.77-0.88) vs 0.80 (0.74-0.86), respectively) or to therapeutic intervention and death. Haemoglobin was significantly better for predicting transfusion and rebleeding, and the Oakland score was significantly better for predicting readmission.

In our study, the Oakland score did not perform better than haemoglobin alone for predicting the outcome of patients with ALGIB. The usefulness of risk scores for predicting outcomes in clinical practice remains uncertain.

The Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, in-Hospital onset, Albumin <2.5 g/dL, altered Mental status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance status ≥2, Steroid use (CHAMPS) score is a novel and promising prognostic tool. We present an initial external validation of the CHAMPS score for predicting mortality in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) across multiple clinical outcomes.

A prospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients with NVUGIB admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology between November 2022 and June 2023. The CHAMPS score performance in predicting in-hospital outcomes was evaluated by employing area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves, followed by a comparative analysis with five pre-existing scores.

A total of 140 patients were included in the study. The CHAMPS score showed its highest performance in predicting mortality rates (AUROC = 0.89), significantly outperforming the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) as well as the Albumin level <3.0 mg/dL, International normalized ratio >1.5, altered Mental status, Systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg, and age >65 years (AIMS65) score (AUROC = 0.72 and 0.71, respectively; all p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis for bleeding-related and non-bleeding-related mortality further confirmed the robust predictive capability of the CHAMPS score (AUROC = 0.88 and 0.87, respectively). The CHAMPS score failed to predict rebleeding and intervention reliably, exhibiting AUROC values of 0.43 and 0.55, respectively. The optimal CHAMPS score cutoff value for predicting mortality was 3 points, achieving 100% sensitivity and 71.2% specificity. In the low-risk category defined by both CHAMPS and GBS scores, mortality and rebleeding rates were 0%. However, within the CHAMPS score-based low-risk group, 58.8% required intervention, contrasting with a 0% intervention rate for the GBS score-based low-risk group (GBS score ≤1).

The CHAMPS score consistently demonstrated a robust predictive performance for mortality (AUROC > 0.8), facilitating the identification of high-risk patients requiring aggressive treatment and low-risk patients in need of localized treatment or safe discharge after successful bleeding control.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, it is important for emergency clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease.

This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning UGIB for the emergency clinician.

UGIB most frequently presents with hematemesis. There are numerous causes, with the most common peptic ulcer disease, though variceal bleeding in particular can be severe. Nasogastric tube lavage for diagnosis is not recommended based on the current evidence. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), but patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability require emergent transfusion regardless of their level. Medications that may be used in UGIB include proton pump inhibitors, prokinetic agents, and vasoactive medications. Antibiotics are recommended for those with cirrhosis and suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopy is the diagnostic and therapeutic modality of choice and should be performed within 24 h of presentation in non-variceal bleeding after resuscitation, though patients with variceal bleeding may require endoscopy within 12 h. Transcatheter arterial embolization or surgical intervention may be necessary. Intubation should be avoided if possible. If intubation is necessary, several considerations are required, including resuscitation prior to induction, utilizing preoxygenation and appropriate suction, and administering a prokinetic agent. There are a variety of tools available for risk stratification, including the Glasgow Blatchford Score.

An understanding of literature updates can improve the ED care of patients with UGIB.

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency. This study aimed to develop models to predict critically ill patients with upper GI bleeding in-hospital and 30-day survival, identify the correlation factor and infer the causality.

A total of 2898 patients with upper GI bleeding were included from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV and eICU-Collaborative Research Database, respectively. To identify the most critical factors contributing to the prognostic model, we used SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) for machine learning interpretability. We performed causal inference using inverse probability weighting for survival-associated prognostic factors.

The optimal model using the light GBM (gradient boosting algorithm) algorithm achieved an AUC of .93 for in-hospital survival, .81 for 30-day survival in internal testing and .87 for in-hospital survival in external testing. Important factors for in-hospital survival, according to SHAP, were SOFA (Sequential organ failure assessment score), GCS (Glasgow coma scale) motor score and length of stay in ICU (Intensive critical care). In contrast, essential factors for 30-day survival were SOFA, length of stay in ICU, total bilirubin and GCS verbal score. Our model showed improved performance compared to SOFA alone.

Our interpretable machine learning model for predicting in-hospital and 30-day mortality in critically ill patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding showed excellent accuracy and high generalizability. This model can assist clinicians in managing these patients to improve the discrimination of high-risk patients.

Acute upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding may be a potentially life-threatening event that requires prompt recognition and an early effective management, being responsible for a considerable number of hospital admissions. Methods. We perform a clinical review to summarize the recent international guidelines, helping the physician in clinical practice. Older people are a vulnerable subgroup of patients more prone to developing GI bleeding because of several comorbidities and polypharmacy, especially related to an increased use of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. In addition, older patients may have higher peri-procedural risk that should be evaluated. The recent introduction of reversal strategies may help the management of GI bleeding in this subgroup of patients. In this review, we aimed to (1) summarize the epidemiology and risk factors for upper and lower GI bleeding, (2) describe treatment options with a focus on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of different proton pump inhibitors, and (3) provide an overview of the clinical management with flowcharts for risk stratification and treatment. In conclusion, GI is common in older patients and an early effective management may be helpful in the reduction of several complications.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Massive gastrointestinal bleeding is a life-threatening condition without a well-established definition. We aimed to analyze the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Our study analyzed a prospective registry of patients admitted between 2013 and 2020 with variceal and non-variceal causes. Severe bleeding was defined as ongoing bleeding requiring transfusion of more than 2 units of packed red blood cells within 24 hours, accompanied by signs of shock. The main outcomes were 30-day and 6-month mortality, rebleeding within 7 days, persistent bleeding, and severe complications during admission.

Out of 1213 patients, 171 had massive gastrointestinal bleeding, with a predominance of males. The massive bleeding group had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, in-patient status, disseminated malignancy, alcoholism, and ASA score ≥3. All major outcomes, including 30-day mortality, 6-month mortality, rebleeding, persistent bleeding, and severe complications, were more common in the massive bleeding group. Multivariate logistic regression identified inpatient status, systemic diseases, malignancy, active bleeding in endoscopy, and severe complications as risk factors for massive bleeding and mortality.

Inpatient status and comorbidities, especially systemic diseases, and malignancies, were associated with a higher risk of massive bleeding. Mortality was linked to chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, severe comorbidities, and alcohol consumption. We observed increased 6-months mortality, probably related to a health status in which gastrointestinal bleeding heralded poor outcomes, some of them potentially preventable. Innovative healthcare interventions, such as Emergency Department-based intermediate care areas or Intensive Care Units, and multidisciplinary follow-up, could potentially improve survival.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency and early assessment of its outcomes is vital for treatment decisions.

To develop a new scoring system to predict its prognosis.

In this retrospective study, 692 patients with UGIB were enrolled from two centers and divided into a training (n = 591) and a validation cohort (n = 101). The clinical data were collected to develop new prognostic prediction models. The endpoint was compound outcome defined as (1) demand for emergency surgery or vascular intervention, (2) being transferred to the intensive care unit, or (3) death during hospitalization. The models' predictive ability was compared with previously established scores by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Totally 22.2% (131/591) patients in the training cohort and 22.8% (23/101) in the validation cohort presented poor outcomes. Based on the stepwise-forward Logistic regression analysis, eight predictors were integrated to determine a new post-endoscopic prognostic scoring system (MH-STRALP); a nomogram was determined to present the model. Compared with the previous scores (GBS, Rockall, ABC, AIMS65, and PNED score), MH-STRALP showed the best prognostic prediction ability with area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) of 0.899 and 0.826 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. According to the calibration curve, decision curve analysis, and internal cross-validation, the nomogram showed good calibration ability and net clinical benefit in both cohorts. After removing the endoscopic indicators, the pre-endoscopic model (pre-MH-STRALP score) was conducted. Similarly, the pre-MH-STRALP score showed better predictive value (AUROCs of 0.868 and 0.767 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively) than the other pre-endoscopic scores.

The MH-STRALP score and pre-MH-STRALP score are simple, convenient, and accurate tools for prognosis prediction of UGIB, and may be applied for early decision on its management strategies.

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding are potentially life-threatening conditions. Early risk stratification is important for triaging patients to the appropriate level of medical care and intervention. Patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) has a high mortality, but risk tool is scarce for these patients. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score to improve the prognostication of death at the time of patient admission to ICU. We developed and internally validated a nomogram for mortality in patients with acute GI bleeding from the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD), and externally validated it in patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database (MIMIC-III) and Wuhan Tongji Hospital. The performance of the model was assessed by examining discrimination (C-index), calibration (calibration curves) and usefulness (decision curves). 4750 patients were included in the development cohort, with 1184 patients in the internal validation cohort, 1406 patients in the MIMIC-III validation cohort, and 342 patients in the Tongji validation cohort. The nomogram, which incorporated ten variables, showed good calibration and discrimination in the training and validation cohorts, yielded C-index ranged from 0.832 (95%CI 0.811-0.853) to 0.926 (95CI% 0.905-0.947). The nomogram-defined high-risk group had a higher mortality than the low-risk group (44.8% vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001; 41.4% vs 3.1%, P < 0.001;53.6% vs 7.5%, P < 0.001; 38.2% vs 4.2%, P < 0.001). The model performed better than the conventional Glasgow-Blatchford score, AIMS65 and the newer Oakland and Sengupta scores for mortality prediction in both the derivation and validation cohorts concerning discrimination and usefulness. Our nomogram is a reliable prognostic tool that might be useful to identify high-risk acute GI bleeding patients admitted to ICU.

We review and summarize the most recent literature, including evidence-based guidelines, on the evaluation and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

LGIB primarily presents in the elderly, often on the background of comorbidities, and constitutes a significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Therefore, acute LGIB requires rapid evaluation, informed decision-making, and evidence-based management decisions. LGIB management involves withholding and possibly reversing precipitating medications and concurrently addressing risk factors, with definitive diagnosis and therapy for the source of bleeding usually performed by endoscopic or radiological means. Recent advancements in LGIB diagnosis and management, including risk stratification tools and novel endoscopic therapeutic techniques have improved LGIB management and patient outcomes. In recent years, the various society guidelines on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding have been revised and updated accordingly.

By integrating the most recently published high-quality clinical studies and society guidelines, we provide clinicians with an up-to-date and comprehensive overview on acute LGIB diagnosis and management.

Several scoring systems have been developed for both upper and lower GI bleeding to predict the bleeding severity and discriminate between low-risk patients, who may be suitable for outpatient management, and those who would likely need hospital-based interventions and are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Risk scores created to identify low-risk patients (namely the Glasgow Blatchford Score and the Oakland score) showed very good discriminative performances and their implementation has proven to be effective in reducing hospital admissions and healthcare burden. Conversely, the performances of risk scores in identifying specific adverse events to define high-risk patients are less accurate, and whether their integration into routine clinical practice has a tangible impact on patient management remains unproven. This review describes the existing risk score systems for GI bleeding, emphasizes key research findings, elucidates the circumstances in which their utilization can be beneficial, examines their constraints when considering routine clinical application, and discuss future development.

Andexanet alfa (AA) is approved for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI) bleeds; however, there are limited reports of its use for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in real-world populations. The objective of this study was to report real-world utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of AA for FXaI-associated GIB.

This retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients receiving AA for FXaI-associated GIB (7/2018-2/2021). Demographics, blood product administration, hemostatic efficacy, rebleeding, thrombosis, and mortality rates were collected. Hemostatic efficacy (HE), based on corrected hemoglobin at 12 h compared to baseline, was categorized as excellent (<10% decrease), good (≤ 20% decrease), or poor (>20% decrease, > 2 units of additional coagulation intervention or death prior to repeat hemoglobin). Comparative transfusion requirements between efficacy groups was assessed by Wilcoxon-Rank test.

Twenty-two patients were included (64% male, median (IQR) age 76 years (67, 80). Most patients (59%, n = 13) were on apixaban, and the primary anticoagulation indication was atrial fibrillation (64%, n = 14). Median initial hemoglobin was 7.5 g/dL (IQR 6.4, 8.8) and 50% (n = 11) were upper GIB. Hemostatic efficacy was excellent in 46% (n = 10), good in 23% (n = 5), and poor in 32% (n = 7). There was no statistically significant difference in red blood cells (RBCs) received between those with excellent/good hemostasis (median 2, IQR 1 to 2) and those with poor hemostasis (median 4, IQR 1.5 to 4.5). Two patients (9%) had arterial thrombotic events within 30 days of reversal.

In this multicenter, single arm, real-world observational analysis of patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated GIB most patients achieved good hemostasis following administration of AA. There was a 9% 30-day thrombotic event rate. The lack of a control group limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most urgent medical conditions, with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) accounting for most gastrointestinal bleeding cases. The Japanese scoring system was developed to predict the probability of intervention in patients with UGIB, and it is more effective than other scoring systems, according to several studies. This study aimed to verify whether the Japanese scoring system is better than other scoring systems in predicting the probability of intervention when limited to PUB in patients with UGIB. We enrolled patients who presented with symptoms of UGIB and were diagnosed with peptic ulcers using endoscopy. The performances of the scoring systems in predicting patient outcomes were validated and compared using the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Additionally, we used the chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and the t test to analyze the association between the patients characteristics and clinical outcomes. Of the 1228 patients diagnosed with peptic ulcers, 90.6% underwent endoscopy. rebleeding occurred in 12.5% of the patients, and 2.5% of the patients died within 30 days. The Japanese score was the most effective in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention for PUB. Sex, systolic blood pressure, hematemesis, syncope, blood urea nitrogen level, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score were predictive factors for the probability of endoscopic intervention in patients with PUB. The Japanese score is an effective predictor of the probability of endoscopic intervention in patients with PUB.

Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.

Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes.

A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Length of stay (LOS) in hospital affects cost, patient quality of life, and hospital management; however, existing gastrointestinal bleeding models applicable at hospital admission have not focused on LOS. We aimed to construct a predictive model for LOS in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB).

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 8,547 patients emergently hospitalized for ALGIB at 49 hospitals (the CODE BLUE-J Study). A predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed using the baseline characteristics of 7,107 patients and externally validated in 1,440 patients. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis assessed the impact of additional variables during hospitalization on LOS.

Focusing on baseline characteristics, a predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed, the LONG-HOSP score, which consisted of low body mass index, laboratory data, old age, nondrinker status, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, facility with ≥800 beds, heart rate, oral antithrombotic agent use, symptoms, systolic blood pressure, performance status, and past medical history. The score showed relatively high performance in predicting prolonged hospital stay and high hospitalization costs (area under the curve: 0.70 and 0.73 for derivation, respectively, and 0.66 and 0.71 for external validation, respectively). Next, we focused on in-hospital management. Diagnosis of colitis or colorectal cancer, rebleeding, and the need for blood transfusion, interventional radiology, and surgery prolonged LOS, regardless of the LONG-HOSP score. By contrast, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

At hospital admission for ALGIB, our novel predictive model stratified patients by their risk of prolonged hospital stay. During hospitalization, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.