This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations
 MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 – 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 – 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early ( MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

/pdf/diagnosis-and-management-of-nonvariceal-upper-zmzickun0k.pdf

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Objective  To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Design  International multicentre prospective study. Setting  Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania. Participants  3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Main outcome measures  Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined. Results  The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P Conclusions  The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited. Trial registration  Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/356/bmj.i6432.full.pdf

Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study.

Background and aim Data regarding the efficacy of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), full Rockall score (FRS) and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores (PRS) in comparing non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are limited. Our aim was to determine the performance of these three risk scores in predicting the need for treatment, mortality, and re-bleeding among patients with non-variceal and variceal UGIB. Methods During January, 2010 and September, 2011, patients with UGIB from 11 hospitals were prospectively enrolled. The GBS, FRS, and PRS were calculated. Discriminative ability for each score was assessed using the receiver operated characteristics curve (ROC) analysis. Results A total of 981 patients presented with acute UGIB, 225 patients (22.9%) had variceal UGIB. The areas under the ROC (AUC) of the GBS, FRS, and PRS for predicting the need for treatment were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.61 in non-variceal versus 0.66, 0.66, and 0.59 in variceal UGIB. The AUC for predicting mortality and re-bleeding during admission were 0.66, 0.80, and 0.76 in non-variceal versus 0.63, 0.57, and 0.63 in variceal UGIB. AUC score was not statistically significant for predicting need for therapy and clinical outcome in variceal UGIB. The GBS ≤ 2 and FRS ≤ 1 identified low-risk non-variceal UGIB patients for death and re-bleeding during hospitalization. Conclusion In contrast to non-variceal UGIB, the GBS, FRS, and PRS were not precise scores for assessing the need for therapy, mortality, and re-bleeding during admission in variceal UGIB.

Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

GOALS To evaluate the initial management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the United States. BACKGROUND Various guidelines have addressed the initial management of upper GI bleeding, but the extent to which these guidelines are followed in clinical practice is unknown. STUDY We conducted a national survey of emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists practicing in hospitals affiliated with an ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship. Participants rated their agreement and adherence to 9 preendoscopic quality indicators for the initial management of upper GI bleeding. Awareness, use, and barriers to the use of early prognostic risk scores were also assessed. RESULTS A total of 1402 surveys were completed, with an estimated response rate of 11.3%. Gastroenterologists and trainees agreed with the quality indicators more than nongastroenterologists and attending physicians, respectively. There was no difference in the application of the quality indicators by specialty or clinical position. Among all physicians, 53% had ever heard of and 30% had ever used an upper GI bleeding risk score. More gastroenterologists than nongastroenterologists had heard of (82% vs. 44%, P<0.001) and used (51% vs. 23%, P<0.001) a risk score. There was no difference between attending physicians and trainees. Gastroenterologists and attending physicians more often cited lack of utility as a reason to not use risk scores, whereas nongastroenterologists and trainees more often cited lack of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS Among emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists in the United States, agreement with upper GI bleeding initial management guidelines was high but adherence--especially pertaining to the use of risk scores--was low.

A national survey on the initial management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIM Risk stratification for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended. However, scoring system accuracy is suboptimal, and score calculation can be complex. Our aim was to develop a new score, the MAP(ASH) score, with information available in the emergency room and to validate it. METHODS The score was built from a prospective database of patients with UGIB and validated in an international database of 3012 patients from six hospitals. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, endoscopic intervention, any intervention (red blood transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or death), and rebleeding. Accuracy to predict outcomes was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS Five hundred forty-seven patients were included in the development cohort. Impaired mental status, albumin   100, American Society of Anesthesiologists score > 2, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and hemoglobin < 10 g/dL were included in the score. The model had a good predictive accuracy for intervention (AUROC = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.88) and fair for mortality (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.81). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AUROC was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56-0.66) in the original cohort and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) in the validation cohort, showing a poor performance, similar to other scores. For rebleeding, the MAP(ASH) (AUROC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.77) was similar to Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) but superior to AIMS65 (AUROC = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.68). CONCLUSION MAP(ASH) is a simple pre-endoscopy risk score to predict intervention after UGIB, with fair discrimination at predicting mortality. Because of its applicability, it could be an option in clinical practice.

/pdf/map-ash-a-new-scoring-system-for-the-prediction-of-3r9biqochy.pdf

MAP(ASH): A new scoring system for the prediction of intervention and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage is a common medical emergency, initially managed with inpatient care. Bleeding stops spontaneously in over 80% of cases, indicating that patients with low-risk upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage may be more optimally managed in the community, without the need for admission to hospital. AIM: To assess the safety of managing patients with low-risk upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage without admission to hospital. METHODS: Prospective/retrospective study of all patients presenting to a UK teaching hospital with low-risk upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage who were managed without admission to hospital over 5 years. Low risk was defined as Glasgow Blatchford Score of 2 or less, age below 70 years, no other active medical problems, not taking warfarin and suspected nonvariceal bleed. Outcome measures were the need for intervention (blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy or surgery) and death. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-two patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and were managed without admission to hospital. No patients required endoscopic intervention, blood transfusion or surgery. The 28-day mortality was nil. Forty-one patients had normal endoscopic examination and 11 had significant endoscopic findings (peptic ulceration=10, oozing Mallory-Weiss tear=1) but did not require intervention. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with a primary upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage aged below 70 years with a Glasgow Blatchford Score of 2 or less are at a low risk, and can be safely managed in the community.

The management of low-risk primary upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the community: a 5-year observational study.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

John Beckly

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The management of low-risk primary upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the community: a 5-year observational study.