Management of iron-deficiency anemia following acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage: A narrative analysis and review

Many patients experiencing acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) require iron supplemen-tation to treat subsequent iron deficiency (ID) or iron-deficiency anemia (IDA). Guidelinesregarding management of these patients are lacking. We aimed to identify areas of unmetneed in patients with ID/IDA following acute GIB in terms of patient management andphysician guidance. We formed an international working group of gastroenterologists toconduct a narrative review based on PubMed and EMBASE database searches (fromJanuary 2000 to February 2021), integrated with observations from our own clinical expe-rience. Published data on this subject are limited and disparate, and those relating topost-discharge outcomes, such as persistent anemia and re-hospitalization, are particularlylacking. Often, there is no post-discharge follow-up of these patients by a gastroenterolo-gist. Acute GIB-related ID/IDA, however, is a prevalent condition both at the time of hos-pital admission and at hospital discharge and is likely underdiagnosed and undertreated.Despite limited data, there appears to be notable variation in the prescribing of intravenous(IV)/oral iron regimens. There is also some evidence suggesting that, compared with oraliron, IV iron may restore iron levels faster following acute GIB, have a better tolerabilityprofile, and be more beneficial in terms of quality of life. Gaps in patient care exist inthe management of acute GIB-related ID/IDA, yet further data from largepopulation-based studies are needed to confirm this. We advocate the formulation ofevidence-based guidance on the use of iron therapies in these patients, aiding a more stan-dardized best-practice approach to patient care

Lewis Score - Prognostic value in patients with isolated small bowel Crohn's disease

Background and aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) allows mapping of small bowel inflammation in Crohn’s disease (CD). We aimed to assess the prognostic value of the severity of inflammatory lesions, quantified by the Lewis score (LS), in patients with isolated small bowel CD. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in which 53 patients with isolated small bowel CD were submitted to SBCE at the time of diagnosis. The Lewis score was calculated and patients had at least 12 months of follow-up after diagnosis. As adverse events we defined disease flare requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy, hospitalization and/or surgery during follow-up. We compared the incidence of adverse events in 2 patient subgroups, i.e. those with moderate or severe inflammatory activity (LS =790) and those with mild inflammatory activity (135 = LS < 790). Results: The LS was =790 in 22 patients (41.5%), while 58.5% presented with LS between 135 and 790. Patients with a higher LS were more frequently smokers (p = 0.01), males (p = 0017) and under immunosuppressive therapy (p = 0.004). In multivariate analysis, moderate to severe disease at SBCE was independently associated with corticosteroid therapy during follow-up, with a relative risk (RR) of 5 (p = 0.011; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–17.8), and for hospitalization, with an RR of 13.7 (p = 0 .028; 95% CI 1.3–141.9). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe inflammatory activity there were higher prevalences of corticosteroid therapy demand and hospitalization during follow-up. Thus, stratifying the degree of small bowel inflammatory activity with SBCE and LS calculation at the time of diagnosis provided relevant prognostic value in patients with isolated small bowel CD

Right-Sided Location Not Associated With Missed Colorectal Adenomas in an Individual-Level Reanalysis of Tandem Colonoscopy Studies

Background & Aims Interval cancers occur more frequently in the right colon. One reason could be that right-sided adenomas are frequently missed in colonoscopy examinations. We reanalyzed data from tandem colonoscopies to assess adenoma miss rates in relation to location and other factors. Methods We pooled data from 8 randomized tandem trials comprising 2218 patients who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopies (adenomas detected in 49.8% of patients). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression with patients as cluster effects with different independent parameters. Factors analyzed included location (left vs right, splenic flexure as cutoff), adenoma size, form, and histologic features. Analyses were controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient sex and age, colonoscopy indication, and bowel cleanliness. Results Right-side location was not an independent risk factor for missed adenomas (odds ratio [OR] compared with the left side, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.17). However, compared with adenomas ≤5 mm, the OR for missing adenomas of 6–9 mm was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44–0.87), and the OR for missing adenomas of ≥10 mm was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33–0.77). Compared with pedunculated adenomas, sessile (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16–2.85) and flat adenomas (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.49–4.10) were more likely to be missed. Histologic features were not significant risk factors for missed adenomas (OR for adenomas with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34–1.37 and OR for sessile serrated adenomas, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47–1.64 compared with low-grade adenomas). Men had a higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy (1.27; 95% CI, 1.21–1.33) than women (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80–0.93). Men were less likely to have missed adenomas than women (OR for missed adenomas in men, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94). Conclusions In an analysis of data from 8 randomized trials, we found that right-side location of an adenoma does not increase its odds for being missed during colonoscopy but that adenoma size and histologic features do increase risk. Further studies are needed to determine why adenomas are more frequently missed during colonoscopies in women than men

Tailoring Crohn's disease treatment : the impact of small bowel capsule endoscopy

"Article in Press"; "Epub 2014 Mar 14"BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) may detect proximal small bowel lesions that have been previously missed by ileocolonoscopy and small bowel imaging in patients with known ileal and/or colonic Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to evaluate whether the therapeutic management is influenced by SBCE findings. METHODS: Retrospective single center study. Inclusion of consecutive patients with known non-stricturing and non-penetrating ileal and/or colonic CD, submitted to SBCE to evaluate disease extension and activity, with ≥ 1year follow-up. Lesions were classified with the Lewis score (LS) as non-significant (LS790). Therapeutic changes were assessed three months after SBCE. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (35±13years, 52% females) were included. At ileocolonoscopy, disease location was ileal (L1) in 60%, colonic (L2) in 10% and ileocolonic (L3) in 30% of the patients. In 33 patients (66%) SBCE detected significant proximal lesions previously missed by other modalities. The proportion of patients on thiopurines and/or biologics before SBCE was 2/50 (4%); this was significantly higher three months after SBCE, 15/50 (30%), p=0.023. Treatment with thiopurines and/or biologics was started more often in patients with proximal small bowel lesions [13/33 (39%) vs. 1/17 (6%), p=0.011, relative risk (RR) 6.5], particularly when severe (6%, 36% and 45% of patients with non-significant, mild and moderate-to-severe inflammation, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: SBCE diagnoses previously undetected lesions and it influences therapeutic management of CD, triggering an earlier introduction of immunomodulators and/or biological therapy

Barrett's esophagus: endoscopic diagnosis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87018/1/j.1749-6632.2011.06045.x.pd

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)