Isaac Jaben1, Roula Sasso2, Don C Rockey3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Digestive Disease Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Electronic address: rockey@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage is a common cause of hospital admission. However, there are little data to inform practice around blood count monitoring-a cornerstone of management. We hypothesized that more frequent testing leads to increased resource utilization without improvement in patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study examined all patients admitted to a large academic medical institution primarily for gastrointestinal bleeding between July 10, 2014, and January 1, 2018. We identified 1150 patients admitted for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Patients under 18, who developed bleeding while hospitalized, or who were transferred were excluded. The primary outcome was the number of complete blood counts collected in the first 48 hours of admission. Propensity matched analysis was performed to assess blood transfusion, units of blood transfused, time-to-endoscopy, mortality, and 30-day readmission rate. RESULTS: On average, 5.6 complete blood counts were collected in the first 48 hours; 67% of the cohort was transfused (average of 2.6 units of packed red blood cells). When matched for comorbidity, anticoagulant use, location (ward vs. intensive care unit), vital signs, hemoglobin level, and international normalized ratio, patients having more frequent monitoring had similar hospital length of stay and mortality rates, but were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (0.93 vs 0.76, P < .05), and if transfused, receive more blood (4 vs 2 units, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Blood count monitoring occurs more frequently than is likely necessary, is associated with a higher likelihood of blood transfusion, and does not affect patient outcomes, suggesting patient care may be improved by less frequent monitoring.
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage is a common cause of hospital admission. However, there are little data to inform practice around blood count monitoring-a cornerstone of management. We hypothesized that more frequent testing leads to increased resource utilization without improvement in patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study examined all patients admitted to a large academic medical institution primarily for gastrointestinal bleeding between July 10, 2014, and January 1, 2018. We identified 1150 patients admitted for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Patients under 18, who developed bleeding while hospitalized, or who were transferred were excluded. The primary outcome was the number of complete blood counts collected in the first 48 hours of admission. Propensity matched analysis was performed to assess blood transfusion, units of blood transfused, time-to-endoscopy, mortality, and 30-day readmission rate. RESULTS: On average, 5.6 complete blood counts were collected in the first 48 hours; 67% of the cohort was transfused (average of 2.6 units of packed red blood cells). When matched for comorbidity, anticoagulant use, location (ward vs. intensive care unit), vital signs, hemoglobin level, and international normalized ratio, patients having more frequent monitoring had similar hospital length of stay and mortality rates, but were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (0.93 vs 0.76, P < .05), and if transfused, receive more blood (4 vs 2 units, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Blood count monitoring occurs more frequently than is likely necessary, is associated with a higher likelihood of blood transfusion, and does not affect patient outcomes, suggesting patient care may be improved by less frequent monitoring.
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Gordon Guyatt; Nancy M Heddle; Brenda J Grossman; Claudia S Cohn; Mark K Fung; Terry Gernsheimer; John B Holcomb; Lewis J Kaplan; Louis M Katz; Nikki Peterson; Glenn Ramsey; Sunil V Rao; John D Roback; Aryeh Shander; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ayodele Odutayo; Michael J R Desborough; Marialena Trivella; Adrian J Stanley; Carolyn Dorée; Gary S Collins; Sally Hopewell; Susan J Brunskill; Brennan C Kahan; Richard F A Logan; Alan N Barkun; Michael F Murphy; Vipul Jairath Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Alan N Barkun; Marc Bardou; Ernst J Kuipers; Joseph Sung; Richard H Hunt; Myriam Martel; Paul Sinclair Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Jóhann P Hreinsson; Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Sveinn Gudmundsson; Einar S Björnsson Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 2.423