Literature DB >> 22897615

Prevalence, management, and outcomes of patients with coagulopathy after acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the United Kingdom.

Vipul Jairath1, Brennan C Kahan, Simon J Stanworth, Richard F A Logan, Sarah A Hearnshaw, Simon P L Travis, Kelvin R Palmer, Michael F Murphy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy after major hemorrhage has been found to be an independent risk factor for mortality after traumatic bleeding. It is unclear whether similar associations are present in other causes of major hemorrhage. We describe the prevalence, use of plasma, and outcomes of patients with coagulopathy after acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter UK national audit. Data were collected prospectively on consecutive admissions with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over a 2-month period to 212 UK hospitals. Coagulopathy was defined as an international normalized ratio (INR) of at least 1.5. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between coagulopathy and patient-related outcome measures of mortality, rebleeding, and need for surgery and/or radiologic intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 4478 patients were included in the study. Coagulopathy was present in 16.4% (444/2709) of patients in whom an INR was recorded. Patients with coagulopathy were more likely to present with hemodynamic shock (45% vs. 36%), have a higher clinical Rockall score (4 vs. 2), receive red blood cell transfusion (79% vs. 48%) and have high-risk stigmata of hemorrhage at endoscopy (34% vs. 25%). After adjustment for confounders the presence of a coagulopathy was associated with a fivefold increased in the odds of mortality (odds ratio, 5.63; 95% confidence interval, 3.09-10.27; p < 0.001). Only 35% of patients with coagulopathy received fresh-frozen plasma transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Coagulopathy was prevalent in 16% of patients after NVUGIB and independently associated with more than a fivefold increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality. Wide variation in plasma use exists indicates clinical uncertainty regarding optimal practice.
© 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22897615     DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03849.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transfusion        ISSN: 0041-1132            Impact factor:   3.157


  13 in total

Review 1.  Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Authors:  Sara Monteiro; Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves; Joana Magalhães; José Cotter
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2016-02-15

2.  The Novel Scoring System for 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sejin Hwang; Seong Woo Jeon; Joong Goo Kwon; Dong Wook Lee; Chang Yoon Ha; Kwang Bum Cho; ByungIk Jang; Jung Bae Park; Youn Sun Park
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Lisa L Strate; Ian M Gralnek
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding?

Authors:  Sung Hoon Jung; Jung Hwan Oh; Hye Yeon Lee; Joon Won Jeong; Se Eun Go; Chan Ran You; Eun Jung Jeon; Sang Wook Choi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Management of Diverticular Bleeding: Evaluation, Stabilization, Intervention, and Recurrence of Bleeding and Indications for Resection after Control of Bleeding.

Authors:  Mohammed Iyoob Mohammed Ilyas; Eric J Szilagy
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2018-06-22

6.  Adjusted versus actual body weight dosing of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in obese patients with warfarin-associated major bleeding.

Authors:  Keaton S Smetana; Rachel Ziemba; Casey C May; Michael J Erdman; Edward T Van Matre; G Morgan Jones
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 7.  Diagnosis and treatment of perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers: 2013 WSES position paper.

Authors:  Salomone Di Saverio; Marco Bassi; Nazareno Smerieri; Michele Masetti; Francesco Ferrara; Carlo Fabbri; Luca Ansaloni; Stefania Ghersi; Matteo Serenari; Federico Coccolini; Noel Naidoo; Massimo Sartelli; Gregorio Tugnoli; Fausto Catena; Vincenzo Cennamo; Elio Jovine
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 8.  Management of Diverticular Hemorrhage: Catching That Culprit Diverticulum Red-Handed!

Authors:  Akira Mizuki; Masayuki Tatemichi; Hiroshi Nagata
Journal:  Inflamm Intest Dis       Date:  2018-07-12

9.  The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Vipul Jairath; Caroline J Doré; Tim P Morris
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Adjusting for multiple prognostic factors in the analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Tim P Morris
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.