Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a life-threatening event. Around 20–30% of patients with GIB will develop hemodynamic instability (HI).

Objectives:

We aimed to quantify HI as a risk factor for the development of relevant end points in acute GIB.

Design:

A systematic search was conducted in three medical databases in October 2021.

Data sources and methods:

Studies of GIB patients detailing HI as a risk factor for the investigated outcomes were selected. For the overall results, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on a random-effects model. Subgroups were formed based on the source of bleeding. The Quality of Prognostic Studies tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

Results:

A total of 62 studies were eligible, and 39 were included in the quantitative synthesis. HI was found to be a risk factor for both in-hospital (OR: 5.48; CI: 3.99–7.52) and 30-day mortality (OR: 3.99; CI: 3.08–5.17) in upper GIB (UGIB). HI was also associated with higher in-hospital (OR: 3.68; CI: 2.24–6.05) and 30-day rebleeding rates (OR: 4.12; 1.83–9.31) among patients with UGIB. The need for surgery was also more frequent in hemodynamically compromised UGIB patients (OR: 3.65; CI: 2.84–4.68). In the case of in-hospital mortality, the risk of bias was high for 1 (4%), medium for 13 (48%), and low for 13 (48%) of the 27 included studies.

Conclusion:

Hemodynamically compromised patients have increased odds of all relevant untoward end points in GIB. Therefore, to improve the outcomes, adequate emergency care is crucial in HI.

Registration:

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285727.

Keywords

gastrointestinal bleeding hemodynamic instability meta-analysis shock

Introduction

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a life-threatening event, often requiring emergency medical care.¹ The mortality rate ranges from 2% to 10%, varying between the countries, making it one of the acute gastrointestinal diseases with the most unfavorable prognosis.^2,3

Current guidelines provide little to no information and recommendations on the optimal management and resuscitation of hemodynamically unstable GIB patients.^4–6 The only randomized controlled trial (RCT) which investigated the early resuscitation of patients with upper GIB (UGIB) found that patients receiving early vasopressor treatment with more value-controlled fluid therapy reached hemodynamic stability significantly sooner. Moreover, these patients also had better laboratory values, developed fewer complications, and had an increased chance of survival.⁷ These results suggest that the early detection and aggressive treatment of hemodynamic instability (HI) are crucial.

Approximately 20–30% of patients with acute GIB develop HI, which is thought to be associated with worse outcomes, including higher mortality and rebleeding rates than usual. Laursen et al.⁸ found that hemodynamically unstable GIB patients had a mortality rate of 13%, compared to only 4% in stable patients. Several other identified studies suggested the same trend.^9,10 However, these values have never been systematically reviewed and quantified before.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the magnitude of the risk of developing the most relevant end points in the presence of HI in acute GIB.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (see Supplemental Table S1) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook.^11,12 The review protocol was registered in advance on PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42021285727.

Systematic search

Three databases, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), were systematically searched from inception until the 22nd of October 2021. We did not apply any filters or restrictions to our search. The main parts of the search query included terms in connection with HI/shock and GIB. For the detailed search strategy, see Supplemental Table S2. In addition, we manually searched for relevant articles and checked the bibliographic reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.

Eligibility criteria

The population–exposure–outcome (PEO) framework was used to identify eligible studies.¹³ We included studies with a population (P) of adult patients (age >18 years) with GIB. Studies were eligible if they contained data on the investigated outcomes in the presence (E) of HI/shock at admission. The primary outcome (O) was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were rebleeding, need for surgery, need for transfusion, length of hospitalization (LOH), and need for rescue endoscopic therapy.

The end points were investigated in UGIB, lower GIB (LGIB) patients, and in populations with UGIB and LGIB patients separately. For defining HI/shock, the individual definitions of the included studies were used. Based on their definitions, HI and shock were considered synonyms, and the term HI was used for both.

RCTs, case–control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were eligible for the systematic review. Only cohort studies were included in the meta-analytical calculations. Full-text articles were considered eligible.

Study selection and data extraction

After the systematic search, the yielded articles were imported into a reference management program (EndNote X7.4, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). After duplicate removal, two independent authors (ET and LF) screened the remaining publications first by title and abstract, and then by full text. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and the involvement of the senior review author (BE). Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated at both levels of selection to measure inter-reviewer reliability.¹⁴ In the case of multiple publications from the same cohort, the study with the highest number of cases was selected.

Two investigators independently extracted data (ET and LF) and manually uploaded them into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet (Office 365, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Disagreements were solved by the senior review author (BE).

Data were collected on the first author, year of publication, study location, study design, period of enrollment, study population, number and age of the enrolled patients, source of bleeding, follow-up time, number of patients with and without HI/shock at admission, and on the definitions of HI/shock. For statistical analysis, raw data were extracted into two-by-two tables (outcome yes/no; HI/shock yes/no). Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also collected.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed by a biostatistician (DSV) using the R programing language (R Core Team 2022, v4.2.1). Forest plots were used to display the results of the meta-analytical calculations. The minimum number needed to perform the meta-analytical calculation was three. In-hospital mortality and mortality in less than 7 days, as well as 6-week and 30-day mortality, were pooled. The same strategy was used for rebleeding. Pooled ORs with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. I² statistics by Thompson and Higgings¹⁵ were used to describe between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s tests with additional analysis if a potential small study bias was suspected.¹⁶ The leave-one-out method was used for sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies where the ‘subtype’ of bleeding was specified. Additional analyses were performed on articles with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for HI.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment was carried out at the study level and across studies independently by two investigators (ET and TS) using the Quality of Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool for each outcome.¹⁷ Disagreements were resolved by the senior review author (BE).

Results

Search and selection

A total of 11,583 studies were identified through database searching. After the duplicate removal and careful selection by title and abstract, 218 articles were found eligible for full-text assessment. Three additional studies were identified through cross-referencing and manual database searching. Finally, our qualitative synthesis comprised 62 studies, and 39 were included in the quantitative synthesis. The details of the study selection process are summarized in the PRISMA flow chart in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 flowchart representing the study selection process.

Basic characteristics of included studies

The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. Eligible studies were reported between 1977 and 2021. The number of study participants ranged from 56 to 12,601. The majority of the identified studies were cohort studies, of which 22 were prospective,^8,10,18–37 32 were retrospective,^9,38–68 and two were ambidirectional analyses.^69,70 One RCT,⁷¹ one case–control,⁷² and three cross-sectional studies^58,73–75 were also included in the systematic review.

Table 1.

Basic characteristics of included studies.

Author	Year	Country	Study type	Type of bleeding	Age	Female	No of patients	Patients with shock/HI	Outcomes	Results
Albeldawi et al.³⁸	2014	USA	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	Mean 68 ± 12.5	49.1%	56	51.8%	In-hospital rebleeding Need for surgery Length of hospitalization	HR: 3.80 (CI: 1.06–13.70) HR: 13.5 (CI: 3.2–56.5) HR: 1.1 (CI: 1.05–1.2)
Ardevol et al.¹⁸	2017	Spain	Prospective cohort	UGIB	NA	31.9%	790	27.3%	6-week mortality	OR: 2.82 (CI: 1.94–4.09)
Bornman et al.¹⁹	1985	South Africa	Prospective cohort	PUB	Mean 51.2 ±16.5	NA	177	14.5%	In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 14.67 (CI: 5.21–41.25)
Branicki et al.²⁰	1992	Hong Kong	Prospective cohort	PUB	Median 59 (range: 12–97)	NA	842	17.5%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 1.96 (CI: 0.92–4.17) OR: 1.60 (CI: 1.01–2.52)
Bratanic et al.³⁹	2013	Croatia	Retrospective cohort	PUB	NA	30.7%	251	1.2%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 29.00 (CI: 2.49–337.18) OR: 13.50 (CI: 1.19–153.19)
Brullet et al.²¹	1996	Spain	Prospective cohort	PUB	NA	21.7%	106	23.6%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 3.34 (CI: 1.00–11.10)
Budimir et al.²²	2017	Croatia	Prospective cohort	PUB	Mean 65.9	37.1%	796	9.7%	30-day mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 5.56 (OR: 2.75–11.24) OR: 12.81 (CI: 7.28–22.53)
Bunchorntavakul et al.⁴⁰	2017	Thailand	Retrospective cohort	NVUGIB VUGIB	Mean 54.7 ± 17 Mean 51.8 ± 11	34.4% 17.9%	180 106	8.3% 16%	30-day rebleeding	OR: 10.65 (CI: 3.57–31.78) OR: 1.99 (CI: 0.37–10.65)
Chaabane et al.⁴¹	2011	Tunisia	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	NA	42.1%	401	9.5%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 19.70 (CI: 6.43–60.32)
Chandnani et al.⁷⁶	2019	India	Prospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 43.5 ± 17.2	31%	300	35.3%	30-day rebleeding	OR: 2.54 (CI: 1.37–4.71)
Charatcharoenwitthaya et al.⁴²	2011	Taiwan	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 60 ± 15.9	30%	526	59.5%	30-day mortality	HR: 2.57 (CI: 1.05–7.76)
Cheng⁹	2014	China	Retrospective cohort	PUB	Mean 57.3 ± 4.8	47.4%	785	12.9%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 5.66 (CI: 2.86–11.21)
Chirapongsathorn et al.⁴³	2021	Thailand	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	Mean 53.3 ± 12.2	10.5%	713	72.5%	5-day mortality 6-week mortality 5-day rebleeding 6-week rebleeding	HR: 12.25 (CI: 7.09–21.16) HR: 12.91 (CI: 7-95–20.97) HR: 2.32 (CI: 1.30–4.15) HR: 2.14 (CI: 1.27–3.64)
Chiu et al.¹⁰	2009	Hong Kong	Prospective cohort	PUB	NA	31.6	3220	20%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 2.85 (CI: 2.15–3.77)
Clason et al.²³	1986	UK	Prospective cohort	UGIB	NA	NA	326	18%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 9.33 (CI. 4.49–19-37)
Danne et al.⁴⁴	1984	Australia	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	Average 56	NA	153	22.9%	Need for surgery	OR: 3.23 (CI: 1.27–8.21)
Del Piano et al.²⁴	2013	Italy	Prospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 53.2 ± 10.1	33.5%	1413	9.3%	In-hospital mortality	OR. 2.89 (CI: 0.93–8.94)
Djuranovic et al.²⁵	2007	Serbia	Prospective cohort	NVUGIB	NA	33.3%	315	21.6%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 18.69 (CI: 3.93–88.78) OR: 2.43 (CI: 1.28–4.61)
Elloumi et al.⁴⁵	2003	Tunisia	Retrospective cohort	PUB	Average 50	18.8%	208	6.7%	In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 3.91 (CI: 1.11–13.75)
El Mekkaoui et al.⁶⁹	2011	France	Ambidirectional cohort	UGIB	Mean 47.6 ± 17.7	36.5%	1303	2%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 5.60 (CI: 2.29–13.72)
Elsebaey et al.²⁶	2018	Egypt	Prospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 68 ± 5.7	29.4%	286	56.6%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 4.47 (CI: 1.49–13.38)
Fujino et al.⁴⁶	2013	Japan	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	NA	33.3%	90	41.1%	30-day rebleeding	OR: 5.56 (CI: 2.00–15.57)
Gado et al.⁷³	2014	Egypt	Cross-sectional	PUB	mean 59 ± 7	50%	62	48.4%	2-week mortality	OR: 1.67 (CI: 0.26–10.74)
Gado et al.⁷⁴	2014	Egypt	Cross-sectional	VUGIB	mean 53 ± 10	37%	224	17.4%	2-week mortality	OR: 4.08 (CI: 1.52–10.96)
Hassanien et al.⁴⁷	2018	Egypt	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	NA	30%	725	28.7%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 7.69 (CI: 5.29–11.17)
Hunt²⁷	1983	Australia	Prospective cohort	PUB	NA	NA	633	29.1%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 14.96 (CI: 6.12–36.55)
Hwang et al.²⁸	2016	Republic of Korea	Prospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 63 ± 16	26.4%	1584	9.8%	30-day mortality	OR: 2.75 (CI: 1.42–5.34)
Ishikawa et al.⁴⁸	1995	Japan	Retrospective cohort	PUB	NA	20%	75	56%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 11.93 (OR: 0.65–219.99)
Katschinski et al.²⁹	1994	UK	Prospective cohort	UGIB	NA	NA	2217	NA	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 4.40 (CI: 3.06–6.33) OR: 4.60 (CI: 3.90–5.43)
Kim et al.⁵⁰	2005	Korea	Retrospective cohort	M-W syndrome	NA	14%	159	22.6%	30-day rebleeding	OR: 6.37 (CI: 2.22–18.31)
Kim et al.⁴⁹	2021	Korea	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	Mean 55.5 ± 11.4	19.2%	1373	6.3%	6-week mortality	HR: 4.43 (CI: 3.19–7.60)
Kitagawa et al.⁵¹	2019	Japan	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	Mean 73.8 ± 10.5	39.6%	144	9%	90-day rebleeding	OR: 6.20 (CI: 1.75–21.97)
Koch et al.⁵²	2013	Germany	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	Median 64 (range: 18–97)	35.9%	463	NA	In-hospital mortality	OR: 4.26 (CI: 1.11–16.3)
Lakatos et al.³⁰	2021	Hungary	Prospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 68.6	38.7%	688	NA	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding Need for transfusion	OR: 1.80 (CI: 1.11–2.92) OR: 2.15 (CI: 1.33–3.47)
Lanas et al.⁵³	2013	Spain	Retrospective cohort	PUB	NA	29.5%	539	6.7%	30-day mortality	OR: 4.36 (CI: 0.02–6.09)
Laursen et al.⁸	2017	Denmark	Prospective cohort	PUB	Mean 74 (range: 48–92)	45%	12,601 6643	23.3% 22.7%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding 30-day mortality	OR: 3.60 (CI: 3.09–4.18) OR: 2.12 (CI: 1.91–2.36) OR: 2.95 (CI: 2.48–3.51)
Lausevic et al.³¹	2007	Serbia	Case–control	PUB	NA	NA	80	30%	In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 52.76 (CI: 6.58–423.02)
Lee et al.⁵⁴	1992	Australia	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	Mean 50 ± 13.5	38.6%	101	56.7%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 2.28 (CI: 1.01–5.16)
Liang et al.⁷²	2012	Taiwan	Retrospective case-control	PUB	NA	29.5%	413	52.8%	30-day rebleeding	OR: 1.42 (CI: 0.88–2.28)
Lohse et al.³²	2015	Denmark	Prospective cohort	PUB	NA	46%	3580	25.7%	90-day mortality	OR. 2.03 (CI: 1.69–2.43)
Mäkelä et al.⁷¹	1996	Finland	RCT	PUB	NA	65.4%	78	19.2%	30-day mortality	OR. 11. 09 (CI: 1.80–68.10)
Marmo et al.³³	2014	Italy	Prospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 67.9 ± 16.7	34.1%	2317	7%	30-day mortality	OR: 5.52 (CI: 3.47–8.79)
Minakari et al.⁷⁵	2017	Iran	Retrospective cross-sectional	UGIB	Mean 55.5 ± 22	30.8%	4747	39.8%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 39.84 (CI: 21.71–73.09) OR: 3.50 (CI: 2.98–4.10)
Mungan⁵⁵	2012	Multi	Retrospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 57.8 ± 18.9	32.6%	423	NA	30-day mortality 30-day rebleeding	OR: 7.28 (CI: 1.81–29.24) OR: 3.49 (CI: 1.13–10.80)
Nagata et al.⁵⁶	2017	Japan	Retrospective cohort	GIB	Mean 75.7 ± 10.6	38.9%	157	20.4%	90-day rebleeding	OR: 2.90 (CI: 1.10–7.70)
Nahon et al.³⁴	2012	France	Prospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 63 ± 18	32.5%	3298	7.7%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 4.24 (CI: 3.07–5.85)
Nykänen et al.⁵⁷	2018	Finland	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	Median 72 (range: 30–95)	30%	NA	NA	30-day rebleeding	OR 0.59 (CI: 0.17–2.06)
Ogasawara et al.⁵⁸	2014	Japan	Retrospective cohort	PUB	NA	24.3%	428	10.3%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 13.98 (CI: 2.27–86.08)
Parreira et al.⁵⁹	2002	Spain	Retrospective cohort	PUB	Mean 52 (SD: 18)	23.5%	200	13.5%	Need for surgery	OR: 3.86 (CI: 1.47–10.15)
Radaelli et al.³⁵	2021	Italy	Prospective cohort	LGIB	Median 78 (range: 67–84)	47.8%	1198	9.2%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 5.07 (CI: 2.54–10.11) OR: 2.43 (CI: 1.41–4.18)
Restellini et al.⁶⁰	2012	Canada	Retrospective cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 66.2 ± 16.8	38.3%	1677	31.9%	In-hospital rebleeding Need for transfusion	OR: 1.10 (CI: 0.80–1.50) OR: 3.42 (CI: 2.73–4.28)
Rios et al.⁶¹	2007	Spain	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	Mean 68 ± 17	46%	171	17%	Need for surgery	OR. 4.81 (CI: 1.87–12.37)
Schmulewitz et al.⁶²	2003	USA	Retrospective cohort	LGIB	Mean 66.8 ± 15.5	49.3%	565	68.3%	Length of hospitalization	HR: 0.80 (CI: 0.70–1.00)
Sereda et al.⁶³	1977	Australia	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	NA	26.3%	513	24.2%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 8.93 (CI: 4.57–17.46)
Shih et al.⁶⁴	2018	Taiwan	Retrospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 55.7 ± 13.3	19.8%	202	22.3%	In-hospital mortality	OR: 7.60 (CI: 2.40–24.05)
Sombié et al.³⁶	2015	Burkina Faso	Prospective cohort	UGIB	Mean 46.8 ± 17.1	29.4%	265	33.6%	30-day mortality	OR: 4.80 (CI: 1.90–11.70)
Stupin et al.⁶⁵	2013	Russia	Retrospective cohort	PUB	NA	NA	895	28.4%	30-day mortality	OR: 6.80 (CI: 4.87–9.49)
Thomopoulos et al.⁶⁷	2004	Greece	Retrospective cohort	PUB	Mean 58.3 ± 17.2	18.8%	191	16.8%	Need for surgery	OR: 3.85 (CI: 1.68–8.81)
Thomopoulos et al.⁶⁶	2006	Greece	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	Mean 60.5 ± 13.5	19.1%	141	18.4%	6-week mortality 1-year mortality	OR: 6.18 (CI: 2.39–16.03) OR: 1–70 (CI: 0.70–4.06)
Tsoi et al.³⁷	2002	Hong Kong	Prospective cohort	PUB	NA	33.4%	8222	8.7%	30-day mortality	OR: 3.62 (OR: 2.77–4.70)
Vuachet et al.⁶⁸	2015	France	Retrospective cohort	VUGIB	Mean 60.9 ± 10.4	22.3%	121 112	11.6% 10.7%	6-week mortality 6-month mortality 6-month rebleeding	OR: 4.60 (CI: 1.40–15.13) OR: 3.42 (CI: 1.09–10.70) OR: 3. 76 (CI: 1.09–12.86)
Wierchowski et al.⁷⁰	2013	Poland	Ambidirectional cohort	NVUGIB	Mean 62.7 ± 15.6	40.9%	482	19.3%	In-hospital mortality In-hospital rebleeding	OR: 11.50 (CI: 5.43–24.36) OR: 3.30 (CI: 1.91–5.72)

HI, hemodynamic instability; HR, hazard ratio; LGIB, lower gastrointestinal bleeding; M-W, Mallory-Weiss; NA, not applicable; NVUGIB, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; OR, odds ratio; PUB, peptic ulcer bleeding; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; UK, United Kingdom; USA, United States of America; VUGIB, variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

The rate of HI/shock ranged between 1.2% and 68.3% of the eligible studies. The source of bleeding was UGIB in 54 of the included studies,^{8–10,18–34,36,37,39–45,47–50,52–55,58–60,63–76} and LGIB in 7.^{35,38,46,51,57,61,62} One study detailed a population including both UGIB and LGIB patients.⁵⁶

In terms of outcomes, 44 studies reported mortality,^{8–10,18,20–30,32–37,39,41–43,47–49,52–55,58,63–66,68–71,73–75} 27 rebleeding,^{8,19,20,22,25,29–31,34,35,38–40,43,45,46,50,51,55–57,60,68,70,72,75,76} and 5 the need for surgery.^{38,44,59,61,67} Two studies detailed the need for transfusion,^30,60 and another two the LOH.^38,62

For the definitions in the included studies for HI/shock, see Supplemental Table S3.

Mortality

We identified 27 studies investigating in-hospital mortality in the presence and absence of HI in UGIB; 22 could be pooled and included in the meta-analytical calculation (see Figure 2). Our results suggested considerably increased odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with HI (OR: 5.48; CI: 3.99–7.52; I²: 74%) (see Figure 2). Subgroup analyses were made in the cases of UGIB, non-variceal UGIB (NVUGIB), and peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). In studies containing information about patients suffering from all types of UGIB, the odds were higher (6.18; CI: 4.11–9.28), compared to the studies only with PUB patients (4.79; CI: 2.62–8.97). In the case of NVUGIB, the results were not statistically significant (OR: 6.52; CI: 0.29–144.21). The influential analysis detected no outlier study (see Supplemental Figure S1).

Figure 2.

Forest plot representing the odds of in-hospital mortality in UGIB.

In the analysis of studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for HI, smaller, but still significantly increased odds were observed for in-hospital mortality (OR: 4.14; CI: 2.47–6.94; I²: 67%) (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Forest plot representing the odds of in-hospital mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for hemodynamic instability (HI).

Besides all other studies, four cohorts, and one cross-sectional, which were not included in the meta-analytical calculation, also suggested higher odds of in-hospital mortality in the presence of HI in UGIB.^{24,35,43,52,75}

One of the identified studies detailed in-hospital mortality in a population both with UGIB and LGIB patients, also indicating increased odds among hemodynamically unstable patients (OR: 5.07; CI: 2.54–10.11).⁵⁶

In total, 19 studies investigated follow-up mortality, all for UGIB. Among the 19 studies, 16 included information on 30- to 42-day mortality, of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. The odds of mortality during the follow-up period were 3.99 (CI: 3.08–5.17; I²: 52%) (see Figure 4). The influential analysis detected no outlier study (see Supplemental Figure S2).

Figure 4.

Forest plot representing the odds of 30- to 42-day mortality in UGIB.

In the analysis of studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for HI, the odds of 30- to 42-day mortality were also significant (OR: 4.03; CI: 2.68–6.05; I²: 58%) (see Supplemental Figure S3).

In addition, the other six eligible articles, five cohort studies, and one RCT suggested increased mortality in HI.^{36,42,43,49,53,71} Two studies investigated 2-week mortality, one in PUB and one in VUGIB. In VUGIB patients, HI was associated with 2-week mortality (OR: 4.08; CI: 1.52–10.96), in contrast with PUB, where the results were not statistically significant (OR: 1.67; CI: 0.26–10.74). Lohse et al.³² reported increased 90-day mortality in PUB (OR: 2.03; CI: 1.69–2.43).

Rebleeding

In all, 17 studies examined the association between in-hospital rebleeding and HI, 16 in UGIB, and 2 in LGIB. Of the 15 studies with UGIB as the source of bleeding, 11 were included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 5). Our results showed increased odds of in-hospital rebleeding in the presence of HI in UGIB (OR: 3.68; CI: 2.24–6.50; I²: 91%) (see Figure 5). Subgroup analyses were made in the cases of NVUGIB and PUB, where the odds were higher in the case of PUB patients, compared to NVUGIB patients (OR: 2.55; CI. 1.44–4.50 versus OR: 4.95; CI: 1.70–14.44). The influential analysis detected Budimir et al. as an outlier study; however, no clinical cause could be identified behind it.

Figure 5.

Forest plot representing the odds of in-hospital rebleeding in UGIB.

In the analysis of studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for HI, significant, but lower odds of in-hospital rebleeding in hemodynamically unstable patients (OR: 3.92; CI: 1.80–8.55; I²: 94%) (see Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Forest plot representing the odds of in-hospital rebleeding in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for hemodynamic instability (HI).

Moreover, the other four studies, which were not included in the meta-analytical calculation, reported increased odds of in-hospital rebleeding.^43,60,75 Two studies investigating in-hospital rebleeding in hemodynamically unstable LGIB patients also reported increased odds (HR: 3.78; CI: 1.06–13.7; OR: 1.85; CI: 1.01–3.42).^35,38

Nine studies detailed the odds of 30- to 42-day rebleeding in the presence of HI, eight in UGIB, and one in LGIB. Four studies of patients with UGIB were included in the meta-analysis, where the odds were 4.12 (CI: 1.83–9.31; I²: 39%) (see Figure 7). The leave-one-out analysis was limited due to the low number of studies (see Supplemental Figure S5).

Figure 7.

Forest plot representing the odds of 30- to 42-day mortality in UGIB.

In the analyses in studies with a definition of a blood pressure ⩽100 mmHg and/or a pulse rate ⩾100/min for HI, almost similar odds were observed (OR: 4.13; CI: 1.11–15.37; I²: 0%) (see Supplemental Figure S6).

The other five studies, four with UGIB and one with LGIB patients, also reported increased odds of 30- to 42-day rebleeding.^{43,46,57,68,72} Two studies were identified investigating 90-day rebleeding, one in LGIB and one in general GIB, both reporting increased odds of rebleeding in HI (OR: 0.59; CI: 0.17–2.06; OR: 2.90; CI: 1.10–7.70).^32,51

Need for surgery

Five studies investigated the need for surgery in the presence of HI. For UGIB, there was an increased need for surgery among hemodynamically compromised UGIB patients (OR: 3.65; CI: 2.84–4.68) (see Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Forest plot representing the odds of need for surgery in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Among patients with LGIB, the two identified studies also suggested an increased need for surgery in patients with HI (HR: 13.5; CI: 3.2–5.65; OR: 4.81; CI: 1.87–12.37).^38,61

Need for transfusion

Two studies detailed the need for transfusion. In both studies, the source of bleeding was UGIB and indicated increased odds of transfusion in the presence of HI (OR: 3.57; CI: 2.6–5.0; OR: 3.42; CI: 2.73–4.28).

Length of hospitalization

Two studies were identified for LOH, both detailing LGIB patients. Abeldawi et al.³⁸ reported increased hospital stays among hemodynamically compromised patients (HR: 1.1; CI: 1.05–1.02). In contrast, the results of Schmulewitz et al.⁶² (HR: 0.8; CI: 0.7–1.0) indicated a trend for shorter hospital stays under the same circumstances; however, their results were not statistically significant.

Need for endoscopic rescue therapy

We could not identify any studies reporting the need for endoscopic rescue therapy in hemodynamically unstable GIB patients.

Risk of bias and publication bias assessment

Of the 27 studies detailing in-hospital mortality, one (4%) had a high, 13 (48%) had a moderate, and 13 (48%) had a low risk of bias. For follow-up mortality, of the 19 studies, 2 (11%) were found to be high-, 8 (42%) moderate-, and 9 (47%) low-risk studies. Of the 17 studies detailing in-hospital rebleeding, 7 (42%) were considered moderate- and 10 (58%) low-risk studies. In the case of follow-up rebleeding, of the 11 studies, 3 (27%) were considered moderate-risk and 7 (73%) low-risk studies. As for the need for surgery, one of the five included studies had low risk (20%) and four had moderate risk (80%). The four studies detailing the need for transfusion and the LOH were found to have moderate risk. The assessment result was graphically demonstrated, as shown in Supplemental Figures S7–S13. The results of the publication bias assessment are shown in Supplemental Figures S14–S16.

Discussion

Our meta-analysis and systematic review found that HI was associated with a fourfold increase in both in-hospital and 30- to 42-day mortality and the risk of rebleeding in UGIB. In the presence of HI, the need for surgery was also more than three times higher. Moreover, all but one of the studies investigating the need for transfusion and LOH identified HI as a risk factor.

Hemorrhagic shock is a critical condition characterized by inadequate perfusion to vital organs leading to an imbalance in oxygen supply and demand.⁷⁷ It has several different consequences throughout various pathophysiological pathways. Hypovolemia results in decreased cardiac output, leading to reduced macro- and microcirculation, causing hypoxia. Hypoxia causes reduced oxygen delivery to vital organs to a certain point where it becomes impossible to meet the oxygen demand.⁷⁸ If there is a preexisting ischemic injury with compromised blood flow, the course and consequences of the disease can be even more severe. At a certain point in the progression of the disease, a switch from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism will occur, resulting in lactate acidosis. Moreover, current studies suggest that the initial lactate level could be associated with significantly worse patient outcomes. Shrestha et al. found that patients with elevated lactate levels (>2.0 mmol/l) on presentation were more likely to be admitted to ICU and receive red blood cell transfusion than patients with normal lactate levels, whereas Lee et al. found that at admission lactate level was associated with higher 30-day mortality.^79,80

Many approaches are used in the literature to identify patients with HI/shock; however, almost all definitions were based on the initial low systolic blood pressure and/or high heart rate. These two parameters can be measured rapidly and noninvasively, without requiring any particular expertise or equipment. It can also be used in patients with impaired cognitive, mental, or critical status. Pre-endoscopic scoring, such as the Rockall or Glasgow-Blatchford scores, which are widely used in clinical practice to determine the severity of UGIB, also includes signs of HI, together with other risk factors.^81,82 However, based on the results of our study, only the two parameters mentioned above at presentation can predict a fourfold increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality and rebleeding in acute GIB.

Based on our result, initial resuscitation and stabilization of HI in acute GIB are crucial to prevent the development of the investigated outcomes. However, many questions about these patients’ initial care still need to be clarified. There is still uncertainty regarding the optimal rate of fluid resuscitation (aggressive versus restrictive), the use of vasopressors, and the optimal type of fluid therapy in the guidelines. Recent meta-analyses suggest that the availability and the use of different endoscopic techniques could also impact the outcomes of the bleeding episode.^83,84 The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline recommends waiting at least 6 h after the development of UGIB before performing an endoscopy.⁴ The recommendation is based on a prospective Danish cohort study that detected worse patient outcomes in case of too early endoscopy in hemodynamically unstable patients, such as higher in-hospital mortality rate.⁸ One of the possible explanations for that could be the lack of the proper correction of the hemodynamic status in a shorter time.

All identified articles reported an increased risk for in-hospital mortality in the presence of HI. However, there were studies where the chance was extremely high. Bratanic et al. reported significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality in PUB, OR: 29.00 (CI: 2.49–337.18). One of the possible explanations behind it could be that they only included patients with a high risk of bleeding, and the initial endoscopy was performed in 4 h.³⁹ Likewise, Chaabane et al. found higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 19.70; CI: 6.43–60.32). Their patients also had an emergency gastroscopy, and the definition used for HI was stricter: a systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg.⁴¹ On the other hand, Branicki et al.²⁰ and Ishikawa et al.⁴⁸ also reported a higher tendency for in-hospital mortality in the presence of HI (OR: 1.96; CI: 0.92–4.17 and OR: 11.93; CI: 0.65–219.99, respectively); however, their results were not significant. Branicki et al. used a less exact definition for GIB, that is, the presence of hematemesis or melena confirmed by the medical staff. Ishikawa et al. included patients only who underwent surgery for PUB, meaning a high-risk population.

Strengths of the study

This study is the first meta-analysis and systematic review quantifying HI as a risk factor for developing the most relevant adverse end points of GIB. A rigorous methodology was used to identify all relevant studies. We also investigated the major bleeding types separately, with subgroup analyses in the case of UGIB.

Limitations of the study

Despite all the strengths, this study had some limitations too. First, in certain analyses, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity. The reason behind it could be the clinical heterogeneity across studies, for example, the difference in defining HI or the source of bleeding. Second, some of the included cohort studies were retrospective analyses. Finally, in some of the included outcomes, the risk of bias was moderate or high.

Implications for practice and research

Based on our results, patients presenting with HI should be identified and treated as proactively as possible. A unified definition of HI/shock should be integrated into clinical practice. Moreover, high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate the initial resuscitation of these patients. Finally, further prospective cohort studies should investigate the risk for initial HI, looking for modifiable factors.

Conclusion

We can conclude that hemodynamically compromised patients have increased odds of the clinically most relevant end points of GIB, including a fourfold increase in in-hospital mortality. Therefore, early resuscitation and stabilization of these patients are crucial to improve survival.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tag-10.1177_17562848231190970 – Supplemental material for At admission hemodynamic instability is associated with increased mortality and rebleeding rate in acute gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tag-10.1177_17562848231190970 for At admission hemodynamic instability is associated with increased mortality and rebleeding rate in acute gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Edina Tari, Levente Frim, Tünde Stolcz, Brigitta Teutsch, Dániel Sándor Veres, Péter Hegyi and Bálint Erőss in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Edina Tari

Brigitta Teutsch

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Farrar

FC.

Management of acute gastrointestinal bleed. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2018; 30: 55–66.

Abougergi

Travis

Saltzman

JR.

Impact of day of admission on mortality and other outcomes in upper GI hemorrhage: a nationwide analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 228–235.

Hearnshaw

Logan

Lowe

, et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut 2011; 60: 1327–1335.

Gralnek

Dumonceau

Kuipers

, et al. Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: a1–46.

Karstensen

Ebigbo

Bhat

, et al. Endoscopic treatment of variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Cascade Guideline. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E990–e997.

Triantafyllou

Gkolfakis

Gralnek

, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 850–868.

JQ.

The use of limited fluid resuscitation and blood pressure-controlling drugs in the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage concomitant with hemorrhagic shock. Cell Biochem Biophys 2015; 72: 461–463.

Laursen

Leontiadis

Stanley

, et al. Relationship between timing of endoscopy and mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 936–944.e3.

Cheng

Risk factors for death of hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding. World Chin J Dig 2014; 22: 5354–5359.

10.

Chiu

Cheung

, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 311–316.

11.

Cumpston

Page

, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10: Ed000142.

12.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71.

13.

Munn

Stern

Aromataris

, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 5.

14.

McHugh

ML.

Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 2012; 22: 276–282.

15.

Higgins

JPT

Thompson

. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–1558.

16.

Harbord

Egger

Sterne

JA.

A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006; 25: 3443–3457.

17.

Hayden

Côté

Bombardier

Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 427–437.

18.

Ardevol

Ibañez-Sanz

Profitos

, et al. Survival of patients with cirrhosis and acute peptic ulcer bleeding compared with variceal bleeding using current first-line therapies. Hepatology 2018; 67: 1458–1471.

19.

Bornman

Theodorou

Shuttleworth

, et al. Importance of hypovolaemic shock and endoscopic signs in predicting recurrent haemorrhage from peptic ulceration: a prospective evaluation. Br Med J 1985; 291: 245–247.

20.

Branicki

Coleman

Lam

, et al. Hypotension and endoscopic stigmata of recent haemorrhage in bleeding peptic ulcer: risk models for rebleeding and mortality. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1992; 7: 184–190.

21.

Brullet

Calvet

Campo

, et al. Factors predicting failure of endoscopic injection therapy in bleeding duodenal ulcer. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 111–116.

22.

Budimir

Stojsavljević

Hrabar

, et al. Bleeding peptic ulcer – tertiary center experience: epidemiology, treatment and prognosis. Acta Clin Croat 2017; 56: 707–714.

23.

Clason

Macleod

Elton

RA.

Clinical factors in the prediction of further haemorrhage or mortality in acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Br J Surg 1986; 73: 985–987.

24.

Del Piano

Bianco

Cipolletta

, et al. The ‘Prometeo’ study: online collection of clinical data and outcome of italian patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: e33–e37.

25.

Djuranović

Spuran

Mijalković

, et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding – how to determine low risk patients for rebleeding and mortality after endoscopic sclerotherapy?. Acta Chir Iugosl 2007; 54: 107–114.

26.

Elsebaey

Elashry

Elbedewy

, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in a cohort of elderly Egyptian patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Medicine 2018; 97: e0403.

27.

Hunt

PS.

Surgical management of bleeding chronic peptic ulcer: a 10-year prospective study. Ann Surg 1984; 199: 44–50.

28.

Hwang

Jeon

Kwon

, et al. The novel scoring system for 30-day mortality in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 2002–2010.

29.

Katschinski

Logan

Davies

, et al. Prognostic factors in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39: 706–712.

30.

Lakatos

Gonczi

Lontai

, et al. Incidence, predictive factors, clinical characteristics and outcome of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective population-based study from Hungary. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2021; 30: 327–333.

31.

Lausaević

Resanović

Pesko

, et al. The influence of risk factors in recurrent peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Acta Chir Iugosl 2007; 54: 35–39.

32.

Lohse

Lundstrøm

Vestergaard

, et al. Anaesthesia care with and without tracheal intubation during emergency endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding: a population-based cohort study. Br J Anaesth 2015; 114: 901–908.

33.

Marmo

Koch

Cipolletta

, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with in-hospital nonvariceal upper GI bleeding: a prospective, multicenter database study. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 741–749.e1.

34.

Nahon

Hagège

Latrive

, et al. Epidemiological and prognostic factors involved in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a French prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 998–1008.

35.

Radaelli

Frazzoni

Repici

, et al. Clinical management and patient outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Dig Liver Dis 2021; 53: 1141–1147.

36.

Sombié

Tiendrébéogo

Guingané

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: epidemiological aspects and prognostic factors in Burkina Faso (Western Africa). J Afr Hepato Gastroenterol 2015; 9: 154–159.

37.

Tsoi

Chiu

Chan

, et al. The risk of peptic ulcer bleeding mortality in relation to hospital admission on holidays: a cohort study on 8,222 cases of peptic ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 405–410.

38.

Albeldawi

Mehta

, et al. Utility of urgent colonoscopy in acute lower gastro-intestinal bleeding: a single-center experience. Gastroenterol Rep 2014; 2: 300–305.

39.

Bratanic

Puljiz

Ljubicicz

, et al. Predictive factors of rebleeding and mortality following endoscopic hemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcers. Hepatogastroenterology 2013; 60: 112–117.

40.

Bunchorntavakul

Yodket

Singhasena

Clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes and risk assessment of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Rajavithi Hospital, Thailand. J Med Assoc Thail = Chotmaihet thangphaet 2017; 100: S104–S115.

41.

Chaabane

Youssef

Loghmeri

, et al. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients in a Tunisian hospital: a retrospective study. Arab J Gastroenterol 2011; 12: 158–161.

42.

Charatcharoenwitthaya

Pausawasdi

Laosanguaneak

, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding after therapeutic endoscopy in the elderly. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17: 3724–3732.

43.

Chirapongsathorn

Akkarachinores

Chaiprasert

Development and validation of prognostic model to predict mortality among cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding: a retrospective study. JGH Open 2021; 5: 658–663.

44.

Danne

Gray

Bennett

. Haematemesis and melaena at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne. Aust N Z J Surg 1984; 54: 257–263.

45.

Elloumi

Arfaoui

Jmaa

, et al. Predictive factors of recurrent hemorrhage in duodenal ulcer: report of 208 cases. Tunis Med 2003; 81: 691–695.

46.

Fujino

Inoue

Onodera

, et al. Risk factors for early re-bleeding and associated hospitalization in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15: 982–986.

47.

Hassanien

El-Ghannam

El-Talkawy

, et al. Risk scoring systems to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with acute variceal bleeding due to HCV-induced liver cirrhosis. Gastroenterol Insights 2018; 9: 13–18.

48.

Ishikawa

Ogata

Harada

, et al. Changes in surgical strategies for peptic ulcers before and after the introduction of H2-receptor antagonists and endoscopic hemostasis. Surg Today 1995; 25: 318–323.

49.

Kim

Park

Jung

, et al. Bedside risk-scoring model for predicting 6-week mortality in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic band ligation for acute variceal bleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 1935–1943.

50.

Kim

Byun

, et al. Predictive factors of recurrent bleeding in Mallory-Weiss syndrome. Korean J Gastroenterol = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi 2005; 46: 447–454.

51.

Kitagawa

Katayama

Kobori

, et al. Predictors of 90-day colonic diverticular recurrent bleeding and readmission. Intern Med 2019; 58: 2277–2282.

52.

Koch

Buendgens

Dückers

, et al. Bleeding origin, patient-related risk factors, and prognostic indicators in patients with acute gastrointestinal hemorrhages requiring intensive care treatment: a retrospective analysis from 1999 to 2010. Med Klin 2013; 108: 214–222.

53.

Lanas

Polo-Tomas

García-Rodríguez

, et al. Effect of proton pump inhibitors on the outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding: comparison of event rates in routine clinical practice and a clinical trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 285–294.

54.

Lee

Hawker

Selby

, et al. Intensive care treatment of patients with bleeding esophageal varices: results, predictors of mortality, and predictors of the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 1992; 20: 1555–1563.

55.

Mungan

An observational European study on clinical outcomes associated with current management strategies for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ENERGIB-Turkey). Turk J Gastroenterol 2012; 23: 463–477.

56.

Nagata

Sakurai

Moriyasu

, et al. Impact of INR monitoring, reversal agent use, heparin bridging, and anticoagulant interruption on rebleeding and thromboembolism in acute gastrointestinal bleeding. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0183423.

57.

Nykänen

Peltola

Kylänpää

, et al. Transcatheter arterial embolization in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: ischemia remains a concern even with a superselective approach. J Gastrointest Surg 2018; 22: 1394–1403.

58.

Ogasawara

Mizuno

Masui

, et al. Predictive factors for intractability to endoscopic hemostasis in the treatment of bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers in Japanese patients. Clin Endosc 2014; 47: 162–173.

59.

Parreira

Pfiffer

Solda

, et al. Predictors of operative treatment in patients sustaining bleeding peptic ulcers. Rev Assoc Méd Bras 1992 2002; 48: 297–302.

60.

Restellini

Kherad

Jairath

, et al. Red blood cell transfusion is associated with increased rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 37: 316–322.

61.

Ríos

Montoya

Rodríguez

, et al. Severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Langenbeck Arch Surg 2007; 392: 165–171.

62.

Schmulewitz

Fisher

Rockey

DC.

Early colonoscopy for acute lower GI bleeding predicts shorter hospital stay: a retrospective study of experience in a single center. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 841–846.

63.

Sereda

Lamont

Hunt

The experience of a haematemesis and melaena unit: a review of the first 513 consecutive admissions. Med J Aust 1977; 1: 362–366.

64.

Shih

Tsai

, et al. Bacteremia in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Turk J Gastroenterol 2018; 29: 164–169.

65.

Stupin

Baglaenko

Kan

, et al. Lethality after gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Khirurgiia 2013; 5: 31–35.

66.

Thomopoulos

Theocharis

Mimidis

, et al. Improved survival of patients presenting with acute variceal bleeding prognostic indicators of short- and long-term mortality. Dig Liver Dis 2006; 38: 899–904.

67.

Thomopoulos

Theocharis

Vagenas

, et al. Predictors of hemostatic failure after adrenaline injection in patients with peptic ulcers with non-bleeding visible vessel. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 600–604.

68.

Vuachet

Cervoni

Vuitton

, et al. Improved survival of cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding over the decade 2000–2010. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2015; 39: 59–67.

69.

El Mekkaoui

Mellouki

Berraho

, et al. Epidemiology, etiology and outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the University Hospital of Fez, Morocco. Acta Endoscopica 2011; 41: 337–343.

70.

Wierzchowski

Dabrowiecki

Szczesny

, et al. Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding - risk factors and the value of emergency endoscopy. Arch Med Sci 2013; 9: 843–848.

71.

Mäkelä

Kiviniemi

Laitinen

ST.

Randomized trial of endoscopic injection sclerosis with ethanolamine oleate and ethanol for bleeding peptic ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31: 1059–1062.

72.

Liang

Lee

Kuo

, et al. Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole in preventing rebleeding among low risk patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer after initial endoscopic hemostasis. BMC Gastroenterol 2012; 12: 28.

73.

Gado

Ebeid

Abdelmohsen

, et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage who underwent endoscopy and confirmed to have variceal hemorrhage. Alex J Med 2015; 51: 295–304.

74.

Gado

Ebeid

Axon

Prevalence and outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. Alex J Med 2014; 50: 143–148.

75.

Minakari

Badihian

Jalalpour

, et al. Etiology and outcome in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: study on 4747 patients in the central region of Iran. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 789–796.

76.

Chandnani

Rathi

Sonthalia

, et al. Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: a prospective analysis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2019; 38: 117–127.

77.

Vincent

De Backer

Circulatory shock. New Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1726–1734.

78.

Hill

Mitchell

Hypovolaemic shock. Br J Nurs 2020; 29: 557–560.

79.

Lee

Min

Bae

, et al. Lactate parameters predict clinical outcomes in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 1820–1827.

80.

Shrestha

Borgstrom

Trowers

EA.

Elevated lactate level predicts intensive care unit admissions, endoscopies and transfusions in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2018; 11: 185–192.

81.

Cheng

Teller

, et al. A modified Glasgow Blatchford Score improves risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleed: a prospective comparison of scoring systems. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 782–789.

82.

Vreeburg

Terwee

Snel

, et al. Validation of the Rockall risk scoring system in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut 1999; 44: 331–335.

83.

Facciorusso

Straus Takahashi

Eyileten Postula

, et al. Efficacy of hemostatic powders in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 1633–1640.

84.

Faggen

Kamal

Lee-Smith

, et al. Over-the-scope clips versus standard endoscopic treatment for first line therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2023; 68: 2518–2530.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.54 MB