Does endoscopic intervention prevent subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with left ventricular assist devices? A retrospective study

Table 3 Comparative characteristics of gastrointestinal bleeding encounters with a subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding vs no subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding, n (%)

Factor		No subsequent GIB	Had a subsequent GIB	P value
n		97	141
Change in anticoagulation		56 (64.4)	87 (65.4)	0.89
Overt bleed		75 (78.9)	102 (73.4)	0.36
Hemoglobin, median (IQR)		7.8 (6.8, 9.1)	7.5 (6.2, 8.4)	0.043
Source identified		51 (52.6)	79 (56.0)	0.69
Culprit lesion	Ulcer	3 (11)	5 (11)	1.00
	Angioectasia	13 (48)	21 (48)
	Dieulafoy	1 (4)	2 (5)
	Non-specific oozing	5 (19)	9 (20)
	Other	5 (19)	7 (16)
Culprit lesion location	Esophagus	2 (2.2)	0 (0.0)	0.38
	Stomach	24 (25.8)	30 (22.6)
	Duodenum	6 (6.5)	11 (8.3)
	Deep small bowel	12 (12.9)	28 (21.1)
	Colon	7 (7.5)	10 (7.5)
	Not identified	42 (45.2)	54 (40.6)
Endoscopic intervention performed		27 (27.8)	44 (31.2)	0.58
Days to first endoscopic study (mean ± SD)		3.4 ± 7.1	2.9 ± 3.6	0.52

Deep small bowel refers to jejunum and ileum. The following statistical tests were utilized: paired t test (days to first endoscopic study), Wilcoxon rank-sum test (age, hemoglobin), and Fisher’s exact test (change in anticoagulation, overt bleed, culprit lesion, culprit lesion location, endoscopic intervention performed). GIB: Gastrointestinal bleeding; IQR: Interquartile range; SD: Standard deviation.