BACKGROUND: Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without hematemesis more so than those with hematemesis. AIM: To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both hematemesis and non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with hematemesis and non-hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. RESULTS: The hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). CONCLUSION: Non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without hematemesis more so than those with hematemesis. AIM: To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both hematemesis and non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleedingpatient populations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleedingpatients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with hematemesis and non-hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. RESULTS: The hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). CONCLUSION:Non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleedingpatients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic yield; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal hemorrhage; Video capsule endoscopy
Authors: Nicholas I Church; Helen J Dallal; John Masson; N Ashley G Mowat; David A Johnston; Esme Radin; Marc Turner; Grant Fullarton; Robin J Prescott; Kelvin R Palmer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Moshe Rubin; Syed A Hussain; Albert Shalomov; Rafael A Cortes; Michael S Smith; Sang H Kim Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Andrew C Meltzer; M Aamir Ali; Roderick B Kresiberg; Gayatri Patel; Jeff P Smith; Jesse M Pines; David E Fleischer Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.721