4.4 Article

Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis Is a Protective Factor for Rebleeding and Mortality in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 61, Issue 7, Pages 2011-2018

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-016-4082-9

Keywords

Gastrointestinal bleeding; Rebleeding; Mortality; Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rebleeding and mortality rates remain high in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. To identify clinical and endoscopic risk factors for rebleeding and mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This study was performed in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding who underwent upper endoscopic procedures between July 2006 and February 2013. Clinical and endoscopic characteristics were compared among patients with and without rebleeding and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for rebleeding and mortality. After excluding 64 patients, data for 689 patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding were analyzed. Peptic ulcer (62.6 %) was by far the most common source of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention was performed within 24 h in 99.0 % of patients, and successful endoscopic hemostasis was possible in 80.7 % of patients. The 30-day rebleeding rate was 13.1 % (n = 93). Unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis was found to be the only independent risk factor for rebleeding (odds ratio 79.6; 95 % confidence interval 37.8-167.6; p = 0.000). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.2 % (n = 23). Unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis (odds ratio 4.9; 95 % confidence interval 1.7-13.9; p = 0.003) was also associated with increased 30-day mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Successful endoscopic hemostasis is an independent protective factor for both rebleeding and mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available