GI Bleeding Summary

30
ED Management of GI Bleeds Summary of Curbside Consult with Dr. Raddawi

Transcript of GI Bleeding Summary

Page 1: GI Bleeding Summary

ED Management of GI Bleeds

Summary of Curbside Consult with Dr. Raddawi

Page 2: GI Bleeding Summary

Defining GI BleedIdentifying the bleed source is important and does change management

Classic characteristics:PUD – Pain stops once bleeding starts (only 40% of all UGIBs)

Perforation – Pain concomitant with bleeding

Blood = cathartic, if no BMs, likely no active bleeding

Bright red blood…Per mouth = UGI source (always)

Same for coffee-ground emesis

Per rectum = LGI source (most of the time)BRBPR in a stable pt is NOT a UGIB

Page 3: GI Bleeding Summary

MelenaBlack, foul-smelling, tarry stool caused by bacteria in the small intestine digesting blood, signifying bleeding proximal to the cecum

Requires 60cc of bleeding

Requires 8h of transit time

Page 4: GI Bleeding Summary

NG Tube InsertionThe ED literature says no need…if you get blood it’s great, if you don’t, it means nothing

+hematemesis = NGT insertion, -hematemesis = none

Witting, Annals of EM, 2004, 43(4):525 Diagnostic NG aspiration sens 42%/spec 91%, PPV/NPV were 92%/64%, PLR/NLR were 11/0.6

The final diagnosis was correctly predicted by the results of NG aspiration in 66% of the patients

NG aspiration was positive in only 69% of the patients with a definitive upper GI source of bleeding (20/29)

CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the limited value of NG aspiration for the evaluation of GI bleeding in patients without hematemesis. A positive test is a good predictor of an upper GI source of bleeding, but a negative test provides virtually no useful diagnostic information!

Page 5: GI Bleeding Summary

NGT for Cirrhotics or Variceal

Bleeds?Go for it, perfectly safe!

Digestive Dis 1973;18(12):1032

Anesth Analg 1988;67:283

Variceal bleeds are often brisk, an NG tube is essential to avoid aspiration

Page 6: GI Bleeding Summary

Guiac PositiveOnly takes 2.5cc blood in the GI tract to turn the card positive

Technically, development requires 2-3min (not secs)

Iron, pepto makes stools look black, but are –guiac

False positives…Red meat Turnips

Vit C Horseradish

Page 7: GI Bleeding Summary

HistoryIn the ED, probably our best strategy at defining the source is to ask the patient…

UGI Source Likely If…

Alcoholic/heavy drinker

Frequent NSAID/ASA/alka-selzer

user

History of PUD/gastritis

Prior UGIBs

High stress lifestyle

Recent ICU admission, intubation, prolonged

hospitalization

Page 8: GI Bleeding Summary

But Does Source Matter?

It all depends on the patient…

If they are…Stable – Probably not

Going home – Probably not (they need to f/u anyway)

Admitted (asx’ic anemia, high risk pt, multiple co-morbidites, etc) – Probably not

Unstable – Probably soBut the unstable hemorrhaging patient will get scoped above and below anyway; so once they are stabilized, you are done

It depends on your belief as to whether medications help or not

The research does not always adequately identify source!

Page 9: GI Bleeding Summary

This Score MightGlasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS)

Risk stratifies those patients at risk for requiring medical intervention (who stays and who goes)

Score >6 associated with 50% risk of complicationsMasaoka, et al. J Gast Hep, 2006

BUN sBP

≥6.5 – 8 2 100-109 1

≥8.1 – 10 3 90-99 2

≥10.1 – 25 4 <90 3

≥25.1 6 Other Markers

Hemoglobin HR>100 1

≥12 – 13 (men) 1 +melena 1

≥10 – 12 (men) 3 +syncope 2

<10 (men) 6 +liver dz 2

≥10-12 (women) 1 +CHF 2

<10 (women) 6

Page 10: GI Bleeding Summary

Medical Management

Let’s get to the heart of the matter…ED interventions

As previously stated, most GI bleeders are stable and likely can be managed without much more than a H2-blocker or PPI and lifestyle modifications with outpatient follow up (if no other risk factors) or obs admission for a scope.

If they are unstable, resuscitate them, inform GI emergently and watch the patient closely

For everyone else…the data is suspect to say the least

Page 11: GI Bleeding Summary

Stomach pHGreen, et al (1978): Acid and pepcin’s effects on platelet aggregation and prolonged bleeding (in vitro)

@pH 7.4 – 70-80% platelet aggregation

@pH 6.8 – 20%

@pH 5.9 – 0%Similar trend with PT and PTT

Lowe, et (1980): Gastric juices promote fibrinolysis

Bottom Line: Increasing gastric pH>7.4 will facilitate hemostasis by disinhibiting platelet

aggregation and fibrinolysis

Page 12: GI Bleeding Summary

What is Important?!?!

Before we continue, it is important to ask, what is important?

Morbidity, mortality, patient outcomes? To the ED doctor, this is true

In the many research studies herein outlined, these don’t matter as much as things like…

Quality of ulcer base on endoscopy (based on Forrest Classification which has poor inter-relater reliability among GI specialists)

Rate of re-bleeding at 5 days

Units of blood transfused, etc…

Just keep this in mind!

Page 13: GI Bleeding Summary

H2-BlockersLevine JE, et al. Meta-analysis: the efficacy of intravenous H2-receptor antagonists in bleeding peptic ulcer. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2002;16(6):1137-1142.

Placebo vs. H2 during UGIB, n=4000

No difference in mortality, 2.5-3% ARR in re-bleeding (p=0.053) for H2, need for surgery 2.5% ARR (p=0.057), 7% ARR in re-bleeding and need for surgery of specifically gastric ulcers, including trend toward decreased mortality for H2B (sub-group analysis)

Leontiotis has Astra-Zeneca ties (makes protonix), works for Cochrane

Underpowered review

Page 14: GI Bleeding Summary

H2-BlockersLevine recommend stopping H2B usage and use PPIs, citing rate of H2 tolerance as cause

Netzer Am J Gastroent, 1999, compared stomach pH’s and showed no difference in pH at 24h b/w H2B and PPI, but lower pH in PPI group at 48-72h

But does this matter in the ER?

We need to reduce the acid to reduce bleeding rate, and H2Bs are effective in first 24h!

Bottom Line: H2Bs do reduce stomach pH and do reduce re-bleeding rate, need for surgery, and possible reduce patient mortality compared to

placebo

Page 15: GI Bleeding Summary

IV vs PO Pepcid?IV (20mg) better than PO for gastric acid secretion

Ryan, JR et al. Comparison of effects of oral and intravenous famotidine on inhibition of nocturnal gastric acid secretion. Am J Med 1986;81(4), 60-64

After 1h, gastric pH ~7.2 for pepcid 20mg IV

Page 16: GI Bleeding Summary

PPIs (i.e. Protonix)

This is touted as the standard of care, but with little supporting evidence

Theory: PPIs more specifically blunt gastric acid secretion, greater onset of action, no tolerance effect by patients

Page 17: GI Bleeding Summary

PPIsSreedharan A, et al. PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in UGIB. Cochrane Rev. 2010;(7):CD005415

Took undifferentiated ED GIB pts and compared PPIs vs placebo before endoscopy, n=2000

No difference in mortality, no benefit for rate of re-bleeding, no difference in need for surgery

PPIs improved characteristics of ulcer base at time of endoscopy (9% over placebo) based on Forest Classification

Note no value in giving PPI prior to EGD

Bottom Line: Prior to EGD, PPIs have no benefit on clinically significant outcomes

Page 18: GI Bleeding Summary

Are PPIs Toxic?!?!Daneshmend TK, et al. Omeprazole versus placebo for acute UGIB: randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ. 1992;304(6820):143-147

n=1147, pts get EGD 24h after enrollment from ED

Rate of re-bleeding and need for transfusion no different between PPI and placebo

Mortality (death over next 2-3wks)… 6.9% (PPIs), 5.3% (plac), p>0.05 (not sig)

Author states, “high dose PPIs might be toxic!”

Bottom Line: WTF?!?! PPIs have possibly greater (or equal) mortality over doing

nothing!

Page 19: GI Bleeding Summary

More on PPIsLau JY, et al. Omeprazole before endoscopy in patients with GIB. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;356(16):1631-1640

Industry-supported study through author affiliations, n=638

“No sig diff b/w omep and placebo group in transfusion requirements, rebleeding, mortality, or pts needing emergent surgery, however, fewer clean-based ulcers and non-bleeding ulcers on EGD (stigmata).”

This study is listed as “pro PPIs” in most reviews, but…

The author’s initial protocol iteration defined “mortality” as primary outcome, not “need for EGD tx”…mid-study primary outcome change!!! (BAD!)

Page 20: GI Bleeding Summary

Does Anyone Benefit From PPIs?

Leontiadis GI, et al. PPI treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Cochrane Rev. 2006;(1):CD002094

Study doesn’t stipulate, but this implies that you know the source of the bleed as peptic (so likely, post-endoscopy, in the ED, we don’t know!)

n=4400, equal morality, 6.5% (p<0.05) benefit in re-bleeding vs “control groups” (not all placebo), 3% (p=0.05) fewer going to OR

Asians have mortality benefit to receive PPIs (no non-Asian sub-group analysis performed)

Page 21: GI Bleeding Summary

PPIs for Non-Asians?Post-hoc analysis of the following studies show…

Daneshmend study (1992), 5% increase in mortality in PPIs for bleeding PUD pts

Hasselgren (1997)…stopped early for harm (p>0.05 in mortality for older pts, 6% vs 1%), met only 75% of enrollment goal before study stopped (using low-dose PPI, 20mg PO)

Schaffalitzky (1997)…no mortality difference, ~8%, only enrolling younger patients, stopped early along with Hasselgren because of similar design features

Bottom Line: For non-Asian UGIB pts with the source being a peptic ulcer, a trend toward increased mortality

exists

1. Daneshmend TK, et al. Omeprazole versus placebo for acute UGIB: randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ.

1992;304(6820):143-147

2. Hasselgren G, et al. Continuous intravenous infusion of omeprazole in elderly patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Results of a

placebo-controlled multicenter study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1997;32(4):328-333

3. Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB, et al. Effect of omeprazole on the outcome of endoscopically treated bleeding peptic ulcers.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1997;32(4):320-327.

Page 22: GI Bleeding Summary

PPIs & Stomach pHMetz DC, et al. Lansoprazole regimens that sustain intragastric pH>6.0: an evaluation of intermittent oral and continuous intravenous infusion dosages. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006;23(7):985-995

Their goal was to raise pH>6, achieved this ~33% of the time, mean pH=5.45

Wang C-H, et al. High-dose vs non-high-dose PPI after endoscopic treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170(9):751-758

Hi-dose = 80mg bolus w/ 8mg/h gtt (higher doses do achieve higher pH), but hi vs low has no bearing on OR, need for transfusion, mortality outcomes, etc

No difference between PO vs IV

Bottom Line: PPIs are equivalent IV or PO, higher doses achieve higher pH, but no studies show the pH exceeding

7.4!

Page 23: GI Bleeding Summary

Official GI Society Guidelines on

GIBsBarkun AN, et al. International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010;152(2):101-113

Pre-endoscopic PPI’s may be considered to (1) downstage the endoscopic lesion and (2) mitigate need for endoscopy, but should not delay EGD

Bottom Line: PPIs have no clear benefit and might be harmful! All patients with a UGIB

need endoscopy, early if sick, later if stable!!!

Page 24: GI Bleeding Summary

Helping the Endoscopist

So you have a patient who had hematemesis at home (none currently), HR 120, BP 80/50, guiac+ tongue and stool, you have fluids running…

No need to insert an NGT (not actively vomiting)

This pt needs a scope, and the best outcomes are achieved by the cleanest views of the bleeding ulcer…so clear out the stomach so the endoscopist can see!

Page 25: GI Bleeding Summary

ErythromycinMotilin receptor agonist, promotes gastric emptying1x dose at 3 mg/kg given 20 to 120 minutes prior to procedure more effective than NGT and placebo!

Coffin B, Pocard M, Panis Y, at al.. Erythromycin improves the quality of EGD in patients with acute upper GI bleeding: a randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:174-9.

Frossard JL, Spahr L, Queneau PE, at al.. Erythromycin intravenous bolus infusion in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Gastroenterology 2002;123:17-23.

Bottom Line: Note the dates on these studies, this is NOT new research; erythromycin works, give it if your

patient needs an emergent endoscopy!

Page 26: GI Bleeding Summary

OctreotideThe last of the commonly prescribed drugs needs its time in the spotlight

Theory: Synthetic somatostatin with greater potency and longer half-life than endogenous somatostatins which function to reduce splanchnic blood flow

Cirrhotics have baseline splanchnic dilation secondary to excessive CO levels, making them pressor-resistant as well

Note: Octreotide is NOT FDA approved for treatment of variceal bleeding

Note: UCB (pharma company manufacturing octreotide) failed to release data from a clinical trial comparing octreotide vs placebo because (and this is a direct quote) “UCB is an ethical company and that all data are proprietary solely to the UCB”!!!

Page 27: GI Bleeding Summary

Class IA Recommendation

ACGE 2007 recommended octreotide for all variceal bleeds (class IA recommendation)

Only looked at a meta-analysis of 8 clinical trials, only concerned about 5d re-bleed rate on pts treated with octreotide (was some benefit, NNT=6), but no other factors had clinical significance

Many of the included studies had major problems…Clinical heterogeneity (Corley, 2001)

Inaccurate mortality data that was incalculable from the numbers presented (Besson, 1995)

Noted failure of included studies to report calculated data (D’Amico, 2002)

Failure to demonstrate a mortality benefit

Page 28: GI Bleeding Summary

Flawed Pathophysics?

Møller S, et al. Effect of octreotide on systemic, central, and splanchnic haemodynamics in cirrhosis. J. Hepatol. 1997;26(5):1026-1033

Showed that central and mesenteric arterial blood volume decreases with octreotide and mesenteric vasoconstriction occurs, but hepatic venous pressure gradients and blood flow do NOT change

Escorsell A, et al. Desensitization to the effects of intravenous octreotide in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(1):161-169

Portal HTN pts w/ varices are desensitized to octreotide’s effects. Pt’s had a decrease in portal pressures and increase in arterial pressures, but effect lasted only 5 minutes and then reversed (the effects weren’t even sustained with a drip)

Page 29: GI Bleeding Summary

Failure to LaunchACGE recommendations are based on morbidity data of a 5d re-bleeding benchmark, but octreotide failed to show in any of the included studies any mortality benefit, differences in blood transfusion reuirements, length of hospital stay, etc.

Bottom Line: Octreotide has a Class IA recommendation for use in patients with a

variceal bleed, but a close look at the literature shows a lack of support for this

recommendation for any ED-specific, clinically relevant outcomes!

Page 30: GI Bleeding Summary

SummaryCritical bleeding from a gastric source is exacerbated by low stomach pH

NG tubes are not needed during the diagnostic process

H2 Blockers do have utility in the acute stages of bleeding but tolerance develops, more studies are needed

PPIs don’t have data that shows patients benefit from receiving it in the ER and might increase mortality, some benefit in Southeast Asian populations

Octreotide shows decreased incidence in 5d rebleeding, not much other benefits

It is important to constantly look at the things we do “all the time” in medicine to make sure we are always doing what’s best for the patients.