We sought to validate the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for acute lower GI bleeding (ALGIB).

We analyzed 8956 patients with ALGIB in the Colonic Diverticular Bleeding Leaders Update Evidence From Multicenter Japanese Study (CODE BLUE-J) study and categorized them into 4 groups based on the BSG guidelines. Outcomes included 30-day rebleeding, 30-day mortality, blood transfusion, therapeutic intervention, and severe bleeding.

The severe bleeding rates significantly decreased from group I to group IV: 92.1%, 70.1%, 58.7%, and 38.4%. The rate of the need for blood transfusion and 30-day mortality also decreased from group I to group IV. Although outpatient follow-up was recommended in group IV, it had high rates of severe bleeding (38%) and 30-day rebleeding (11%). Notably, for colonic diverticular bleeding, the rate of 30-day rebleeding was 25.5%, even with an Oakland score of ≤8. We identified abdominal pain, diarrhea, and a high white blood cell count as independent factors that differentiate between nonsevere and severe bleeding cases in group IV. Using these factors, we found that the 30-day rebleeding rate in the nonsevere group was 3.6%, suggesting the feasibility of outpatient follow-up in this group. Furthermore, a novel group, Group X, which deviated from the existing 4 groups, had a high severe bleeding rate (70.9%) comparable to that of group II.

The BSG guidelines suggest a management approach that can clearly differentiate severity. However, caution is advised when using the Oakland score to triage patients for outpatient follow-up. Additionally, prompt intervention may be necessary for groups not covered by the guidelines.

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is the most common adverse event following colonic polypectomy, yet its management remains highly heterogeneous and lacks standardization. A considerable number of colonoscopies performed for DPPB may be unnecessary and do not result in hemostatic intervention.

To develop evidence-based statements to guide clinical decision-making in DPPB.

Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement.

A panel of 29 experts in gastroenterology, hematology, radiology, and surgery was assembled. Through a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process, consensus statements were developed through iterative rounds of anonymous voting. Statements were revised following anonymous voting and feedback at each round. Those achieving 80% agreement were accepted.

The expert panel reached a consensus on 36 statements, covering areas such as antithrombotic management, bowel preparation, colonoscopy indications, and therapeutic hemostatic modalities. Key recommendations include guidance for managing self-limited bleeding and risk stratification to reduce the rate of unnecessary colonoscopies, as well as recommendations for hemodynamically unstable patients who may require primary angioembolization. A practical clinical algorithm is proposed.

This document provides a consensus-based framework for managing DPPB. These recommendations aim to improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resources while fostering a standardized approach to this common adverse event.

 Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common condition linked to increased morbidity, healthcare costs, and mortality. Currently, no prospectively validated prognostic model exists to predict mortality in patients with LGIB. Our aim was to develop and validate a risk score that could accurately predict in-hospital mortality of patients admitted for LGIB.

 Patient data from a nationwide cohort study in 15 centers in Italy (2019-2020) were used to derive the risk score, the Acute Lower gastrointestinal Bleeding and In-hospital mortality (ALIBI) score; the model was then externally validated in a cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for LGIB in 12 centers from six countries (Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Iran, and Brazil) from 2022 to 2024. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality; we also reported rebleeding rates and the in-hospital mortality rate stratified by risk score and timing of colonoscopy. RESULTS : Among 1198 patients in the derivation cohort, 105 (8.8%) re-bled and 41 (3.4%) died. Age, Charlson Co-morbidity Index, in-hospital onset, hemodynamic instability, and creatinine level were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. The model demonstrated excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve [AUROC] 0.81, 95%CI 0.75-0.87) and calibration. In the validation cohort (n = 752 patients), the model's good discrimination (AUROC 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) and calibration were confirmed. Patients were categorized as low (0-4 points; 1% mortality), intermediate (5-9 points; 4.6% mortality), or high risk (10-13 points; 19.1% mortality). CONCLUSION : A new validated score effectively predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with LGIB, aiding in their risk stratification and management.

Introduction: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) frequently leads to emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations, encompassing a spectrum of outcomes from spontaneous resolution to intrahospital mortality. Aim: The purpose of this study was to validate a scoring system designed to identify cases of low-risk LGIB, allowing for safe discharge from the ED. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all gastrointestinal bleeding cases presented at three EDs in 2020 was conducted, focusing specifically on patients with LGIB. The SHA2PE score incorporates factors such as systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin levels, use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, pulse rate, and episodes of bright blood per rectum. Results: Out of 1112 patients presenting with LGIB to the ED, 55 were hospitalized, 20 required blood transfusions, 15 underwent colonoscopies, one underwent interventional radiology procedures, and two patients died. Employing a SHA2PE score with a cutoff value of 1 yielded a specificity of 78.5% (95% CI (confidence interval) [75.8-81.0]), sensitivity of 76.8% (95% CI [63.6-87.0]), positive predictive value (PPV) of 17.0% (95% CI [12.6-22.2]), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.3% (95% CI [97.2-99.1]) for predicting the need for hospitalization and intrahospital intervention. When considering return visits to the ED within 7 days with the same presentation, the score demonstrated a specificity of 78.8% (95% CI [76.0-81.3]), sensitivity of 68.6% (95% CI [56.4-79.1]), PPV of 19% (95% CI [14.3-24.4]), and NPV of 97.2% (95% CI [95.8-98.2]). Conclusions: The SHA2PE score demonstrates potential in predicting cases of low-risk LGIB, offering a high NPV for hospitalization, the need for intrahospital intervention, and return visits to the ED. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the low prevalence of interventions and limitations in the study's population and design.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

We conducted a prognostic study of patients hospitalized for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding who underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single-center hospital between January 2015 and October 2023. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated three risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SALGIB). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong's test.

222 patients with confirmed lower gastrointestinal bleeding (aged 64 years, 53-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (28 %) and hemorrhoids (14 %). The Oakland score, Birmingham score, and SALGIB score displayed comparable performance in predicting any adverse outcome (AUC = 0.54, 0.53, 0.55). However, none of the scores were able to sufficiently discriminate rebleeding, blood transfusion, or hemostatic intervention. Using the Youden index, cutoff points for predicting undesired results were identified for the Oakland score at 13, Birmingham score at 3, and SALGIB score at 2.

None of the three scores demonstrated satisfactory discrimination for adverse outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to develop novel risk stratification scores with higher performance to improve risk stratification in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

The growing incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is leading to a rise in-hospital admissions even though most LGIB episodes are self-limiting. The Oakland and SHA2PE scores were designed to identify patients best suited to outpatient care. Our aim is explore the validity of the SHA2PE score and compare both of these scores in terms of predictiveness of safe discharge.

Retrospective observational study of LGIB patients admitted to a tertiary hospital between June 2014 and June 2019. Safe discharge was defined as the absence of all the following: blood transfusion, haemostatic intervention, re-bleeding, in-hospital death, and re-admission due to LGIB within 28 days after discharge.

From 595 hospital admissions for LGIB, 398 episodes were included. Fifty-four per cent met safe discharge criteria, with these cases being younger, with a lower score in the Charlson's index and significantly higher haemoglobin concentration upon arrival. The performance of both scores was good, with an AUC for the Oakland score of 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.89) and of 0.797 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the SHA2PE score. The Oakland score performed better in terms of prediction of safe discharge, with a positive predictive value and specificity of 100% when a cut-off value of ≤ 8 points was used; however, only a minority of patients might benefit from its implementation given its low sensitivity.

Almost half of the patients admitted for LGIB met criteria for safe discharge. However, the available indexes only allow for the identification of a small proportion of those patients candidates for outpatient care.

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department. Therefore, it is important for emergency medicine clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease.

This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning LGIB for the emergency clinician.

LGIB is most commonly due to diverticulosis or anorectal disease, though there are a variety of etiologies. The majority of cases resolve spontaneously, but patients can have severe bleeding resulting in hemodynamic instability. Initial evaluation should focus on patient hemodynamics, the severity of bleeding, and differentiating upper gastrointestinal bleeding from LGIB. Factors associated with LGIB include prior history of LGIB, age over 50 years, and presence of blood clots per rectum. Computed tomography angiography is the imaging modality of choice in those with severe bleeding to diagnose the source of bleeding and guide management when embolization is indicated. Among stable patients without severe bleeding, colonoscopy is the recommended modality for diagnosis and management. A transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL hemoglobin is recommended based on recent data and guidelines (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), though patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability should undergo emergent transfusion. Anticoagulation reversal may be necessary. If bleeding does not resolve, embolization or endoscopic therapies are necessary. There are several risk scores that can predict the risk of adverse outcomes; however, these scores should not replace clinical judgment in determining patient disposition.

An understanding of literature updates can improve the care of patients with LGIB.

Pseudoaneurysms of the middle rectal artery are rare. When encountered, these have the potential for significant morbidity and mortality due to bleeding and potential rupture. Endovascular embolization is a feasible option in the management of these pseudoaneurysms. The present report describes a case of a 43-year-old male presenting with hemorrhagic shock secondary to lower gastrointestinal bleeding one day after undergoing excision of an external perineal condyloma, incision and drainage of a perirectal abscess, and biopsy of a perianal mass. Angiographic imaging revealed a right middle rectal artery pseudoaneurysm. Selective embolization of the right middle rectal artery and bilateral superior rectal arteries was successfully performed. At the two-week post-embolization follow-up, hemoglobin was stable, and the patient reported normal bowel movements with no episodes of bleeding per rectum.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for hospital admission. However, the majority resolve spontaneously and only a minority require inpatient intervention. We aimed to describe the epidemiology and aetiology of acute LGIB admissions in our institution. We also aimed to validate the Oakland Score, which can identify patients at low risk of adverse outcome from LGIB, in our population and determine the proportion who could have safely avoided admission.

Using the prospective, validated Otago Clinical Audit database (DIVA), we searched for adult patients admitted to Dunedin Hospital with a primary diagnosis of LGIB between January 2013 and December 2020. We retrieved data to calculate the Oakland Score and details of inpatient treatment from the electronic patient record. We excluded patients admitted electively, admissions related to inflammatory bowel disease, and those with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

We identified 761 patients of which 501 met inclusion criteria (56% male, median age 76 years, 82% NZ European). Overall, 72% were managed with observation or diagnostic endoscopy, 32% received blood products, and 7% required haemostatic intervention to control bleeding. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the Oakland Score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89). A cut-off score of ≤10 predicted a 95% probability of safely avoiding admission. This equates to saving 30 bed-days annually.

The majority of patients admitted with LGIB are managed conservatively. The Oakland Score could be used as a stratification tool to safely reduce the admission rate.

 The rebleeding risks and outcomes of endoscopic treatment for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) may differ depending on the bleeding location, type, and etiology of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) but have yet to be fully investigated. We aimed to identify high risk endoscopic SRH and to propose an optimal endoscopic treatment strategy.

 We retrospectively analyzed 2699 ALGIB patients with SRH at 49 hospitals (CODE BLUE-J Study), of whom 88.6 % received endoscopic treatment.

 30-day rebleeding rates of untreated SRH significantly differed among locations (left colon 15.5 % vs. right colon 28.6 %) and etiologies (diverticular bleeding 27.5 % vs. others [e. g. ulcerative lesions or angioectasia] 8.9 %), but not among bleeding types. Endoscopic treatment reduced the overall rebleeding rate (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.69; 95 %CI 0.49-0.98), and the treatment effect was significant in right-colon SRH (AOR 0.46; 95 %CI 0.29-0.72) but not in left-colon SRH. The effect was observed in both active and nonactive types, but was not statistically significant. Moreover, the effect was significant for diverticular bleeding (AOR 0.60; 95 %CI 0.41-0.88) but not for other diseases. When focusing on treatment type, the effectiveness was not significantly different between clipping and other modalities for most SRH, whereas ligation was significantly more effective than clipping in right-colon diverticular bleeding.

 A population-level endoscopy dataset allowed us to identify high risk endoscopic SRH and propose a simple endoscopic treatment strategy for ALGIB. Unlike upper gastrointestinal bleeding, the rebleeding risks for ALGIB depend on colonic location, bleeding etiology, and treatment modality.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients who were admitted to ALGIB and underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated six risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SHA2PE, Ramaekers, SALGIB, and CNUH-5). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong's test.

123 patients with confirmed LGIB (aged 65 years, 55-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (25%) and hemorrhoids (14%). All scores demonstrated sufficient and comparable effectiveness for hemostatic intervention but no discrimination for rebleeding. The Oakland and SALGIB scores were superior to the other scores in predicting blood transfusion (AUC: 0.97 and 0.95, respectively; p = 0.208) and any adverse outcomes (AUC: 0.78 and 0.78, respectively; p = 0.854).

The Oakland and SALGIB scores outperform the other scores in predicting the requirement for blood transfusion in ALGIB patients, but no single prediction tool had the best ability across all outcomes. Novel risk stratification scores with higher performance are needed for better risk stratification in ALGIB.

The study aimed to identify prognostic factors for patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and to develop a high-accuracy prediction tool. The analysis included 8254 cases of acute hematochezia patients who were admitted urgently based on the judgment of emergency physicians or gastroenterology consultants (from the CODE BLUE J-study). Patients were randomly assigned to a derivation cohort and a validation cohort in a 2:1 ratio using a random number table. Assuming that factors present at the time of admission are involved in mortality within 30 days of admission, and adding management factors during hospitalization to the factors at the time of admission for mortality within 1 year, prognostic factors were established. Multivariate analysis was conducted, and scores were assigned to each factor using regression coefficients, summing these to measure the score. The newly created score (CACHEXIA score) became a tool capable of measuring both mortality within 30 days (ROC-AUC 0.93) and within 1 year (C-index, 0.88). The 1-year mortality rates for patients classified as low, medium, and high risk by the CACHEXIA score were 1.0%, 13.4%, and 54.3% respectively (all P < 0.001). After discharge, patients identified as high risk using our unique predictive score require ongoing observation.

Introduction Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) presents challenges in emergency settings, with incidence influenced by demographic shifts and anticoagulant usage. The Oakland score aids in risk stratification for safe discharge based on clinical and laboratory parameters. However, external validation remains limited. Methods This study validated the Oakland score in a French cohort of patients with acute LGIB and assessed the discriminatory value of the score using the area under the curve (AUC) and then its sensitivity and specificity. Results A retrospective examination of 343 patient records that satisfied the inclusion criteria showed a median score of 14 points and good discriminatory capacity (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve: 0.83). There was low sensitivity (20.9%) for safe discharge but good specificity (98.5%) when using an 8-point threshold. With a 9-point threshold, the sensitivity was increased to 36.5%, while the specificity remained at 95%. Conclusion Identifying low-risk LGIB patients is accomplished without sacrificing sensitivity by increasing the Oakland score threshold to 9 points. This modification improves patient safety and resource allocation in the emergency room and has been verified by other large series. For wider implementation, additional validation and long-term outcome evaluations are required.

Mucoprotective agents, such as eupatilin, are often prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in addition to an acid suppressant despite the absence of a large-scale study. We evaluated the additional effect of eupatilin on the prevention of GI bleeding in both the upper and lower GI tract in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users using the nationwide database of national claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS).

An aspirin cohort was constructed using the NHIS claims data from 2013 to 2020. Patients who manifested with hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia were considered to have GI bleeding. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine the risk factors for GI bleeding associated with the concomitant use of GI drugs and other covariates among aspirin users.

Overall, a total of 432,208 aspirin users were included. The concurrent use of an acid suppressant and eupatilin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, p = 0.016, vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding. Moreover, a more than 3-month duration (HR = 0.88, p = 0.030) of acid suppressant and eupatilin prescription (vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding.

Eupatilin administration for ≥ 3 months showed additional preventive effect on GI bleeding in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users. Thus, cotreatment with eupatilin with a duration of 3 months or longer is recommended for reducing GI bleeding among aspirin plus acid suppressant users.

This study aimed to determine the performance of the Oakland, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 scores in predicting the clinical outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

This prospective cohort study was conducted from July 2020 to July 2021. Patients admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding were enrolled. The Oakland, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 scores were calculated. The primary outcome was validating the performance of the scores in predicting severe LGIB; secondary outcomes were comparing the performance of the scores in predicting the need for blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, in-hospital rebleeding, and mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for all outcomes. The associations between all three scores and the primary outcomes were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Patients with acute LGIB (n = 150) were enrolled (88 [58.7%] men and mean age: 63.6 ± 17.3 years). The rates of severe LGIB, need for blood transfusion, hemostatic intervention, in-hospital rebleeding, and in-hospital mortality were 54.7%, 79.3%, 10.7%, and 3.3%, respectively. The Oakland and Glasgow-Blatchford scores had comparable performance in predicting severe LGIB, need for blood transfusion, and mortality, outperforming the AIMS65 score. All scores were suboptimal for predicting hemostatic interventions and rebleeding.

Our results demonstrate the predictive performances of the Oakland score and the GBS are excellent and comparable for severe LGIB, the need for blood transfusion, and in-hospital mortality in patients with acute LGIB. Thus, GBS could be considered as an alternative predictive score for stratification of the patients with acute LGIB.

Current evidence on the surgical rate, indication, procedure, risk factors, mortality, and postoperative rebleeding for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is limited.

We constructed a retrospective cohort of 10,342 patients admitted for acute hematochezia at 49 hospitals (CODE BLUE J-Study) and evaluated clinical data on the surgeries performed.

Surgery was performed in 1.3% (136/10342) of the cohort with high rates of colonoscopy (87.7%) and endoscopic hemostasis (26.7%). Indications for surgery included colonic diverticular bleeding (24%), colorectal cancer (22%), and small bowel bleeding (16%). Sixty-four percent of surgeries were for hemostasis for severe refractory bleeding. Postoperative rebleeding rates were 22% in patients with presumptive or obscure preoperative identification of the bleeding source and 12% in those with definitive identification. Thirty-day mortality rates were 1.5% and 0.8% in patients with and without surgery, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that surgery-related risk factors were transfusion need ≥ 6 units (P < 0.001), in-hospital rebleeding (P < 0.001), small bowel bleeding (P < 0.001), colorectal cancer (P < 0.001), and hemorrhoids (P < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis was negatively associated with surgery (P = 0.003). For small bowel bleeding, the surgery rate was significantly lower in patients with endoscopic hemostasis as 2% compared to 12% without endoscopic hemostasis.

Our cohort study elucidated the outcomes and risks of the surgery. Extensive exploration including the small bowel to identify the source of bleeding and endoscopic hemostasis may reduce unnecessary surgery and improve the management of ALGIB.

Several scoring systems have been developed for both upper and lower GI bleeding to predict the bleeding severity and discriminate between low-risk patients, who may be suitable for outpatient management, and those who would likely need hospital-based interventions and are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Risk scores created to identify low-risk patients (namely the Glasgow Blatchford Score and the Oakland score) showed very good discriminative performances and their implementation has proven to be effective in reducing hospital admissions and healthcare burden. Conversely, the performances of risk scores in identifying specific adverse events to define high-risk patients are less accurate, and whether their integration into routine clinical practice has a tangible impact on patient management remains unproven. This review describes the existing risk score systems for GI bleeding, emphasizes key research findings, elucidates the circumstances in which their utilization can be beneficial, examines their constraints when considering routine clinical application, and discuss future development.

Currently, large, nationwide, long-term follow-up data on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) are scarce. We investigated long-term risks of recurrence after hospital discharge for ALGIB using a large multicenter dataset.

We retrospectively analyzed 5048 patients who were urgently hospitalized for ALGIB at 49 hospitals across Japan (CODE BLUE-J study). Risk factors for the long-term recurrence of ALGIB were analyzed by using competing risk analysis, treating death without rebleeding as a competing risk.

Rebleeding occurred in 1304 patients (25.8%) during a mean follow-up period of 31 months. The cumulative incidences of rebleeding at 1 and 5 years were 15.1% and 25.1%, respectively. The mortality risk was significantly higher in patients with out-of-hospital rebleeding episodes than in those without (hazard ratio, 1.42). Of the 30 factors, multivariate analysis showed that shock index ≥1 (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.25), blood transfusion (SHR, 1.26), in-hospital rebleeding (SHR, 1.26), colonic diverticular bleeding (SHR, 2.38), and thienopyridine use (SHR, 1.24) were significantly associated with increased rebleeding risk. Multivariate analysis of colonic diverticular bleeding patients showed that blood transfusion (SHR, 1.20), in-hospital rebleeding (SHR, 1.30), and thienopyridine use (SHR, 1.32) were significantly associated with increased rebleeding risk, whereas endoscopic hemostasis (SHR, 0.83) significantly decreased the risk.

These large, nationwide follow-up data highlighted the importance of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment during hospitalization and the assessment of the need for ongoing thienopyridine use to reduce the risk of out-of-hospital rebleeding. This information also aids in the identification of patients at high risk of rebleeding.

To define and contextualize life-threatening gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the setting of factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor therapy and to derive a consensus-based, clinically oriented approach to the administration of FXa inhibitor reversal therapy.

We convened an expert panel of clinicians representing specialties in emergency medicine, gastroenterology, vascular medicine, and trauma surgery. Consensus was reached among the clinician panelists using the Delphi technique, which consisted of 2 survey questionnaires followed by virtual, real-time consensus-building exercises.

Hypovolemia and hemodynamic instability were considered the most important clinical signs of FXa inhibitor-related, life-threatening GI bleeds. Clinician panelists agreed that potentially life-threatening GI bleeding should be determined on the basis of hemodynamic instability, signs of shock, individual patient characteristics, and clinical judgment. Last, the panel agreed that all patients with life-threatening, FXa inhibitor-associated GI bleeding should be considered for FXa inhibitor reversal therapy; the decision to reverse FXa inhibition should be individualized, weighing the risks and benefits of reversal; and when reversal is elected, therapy should be administered within 1 h after initial emergency department evaluation, when possible.

Consensus-based definitions of life-threatening GI bleeding and approaches to FXa inhibitor reversal centered on hemodynamic instability, signs of shock, individual patient characteristics, and clinical judgment. The results from this Delphi panel may inform clinical decision-making for the treatment of patients experiencing GI bleeding associated with FXa inhibitor use in the emergency department setting.

This study aimed to investigate the risk factors for difficult endoscopic hemostasis in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for colonic diverticular bleeding. This study included 208 patients with colorectal diverticular hemorrhage. The non-interventional radiotherapy group consisted of patients who underwent successful spontaneous hemostasis (n = 131) or endoscopic hemostasis (n = 56), whereas the interventional radiotherapy group consisted of patients who underwent TAE (n = 21). Patient clinical characteristics were compared to identify independent risk factors for the interventional radiotherapy group. Furthermore, the hemostasis success rate, rebleeding rate, complications, and recurrence-free survival were compared between patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis and those who underwent TAE. Bleeding from the right colon (odds ratio [OR]: 7.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-38.8; P = .0113) and systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg (OR: 0.108; 95% CI: 0.0189-0.62; P = .0126) were identified as independent risk factors for the interventional radiology group. The hemostasis success rate (P = 1.00), early rebleeding rate (within 30 days) (P = .736), late rebleeding rate (P = 1.00), and recurrence-free survival rate (P = .717) were not significantly different between the patients who underwent TAE and those who underwent endoscopic hemostasis. Patients in the TAE group experienced more complications than those in the endoscopic hemostasis group (P < .001). Complications included mild intestinal ischemia (19.0%) and perforation requiring surgery (4.8%). Patients who required interventional radiotherapy were more likely to bleed from the right colon and presented with a systolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg. TAE is an effective treatment for patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage that is refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. However, complications must be monitored carefully.

Weekend admissions showed increased mortality in several medical conditions. This study aimed to examine the weekend effect on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) and its mortality and other outcomes.

This retrospective cohort study (CODE BLUE-J Study) was conducted at 49 Japanese hospitals between January 2010 and December 2019. In total, 8,120 outpatients with acute hematochezia were enrolled and divided into weekend admissions and weekday admissions groups. Multiple imputation (MI) was used to handle missing values, followed by propensity score matching (PSM) to compare outcomes. The primary outcome was mortality; the secondary outcomes were rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), blood transfusion, thromboembolism, endoscopic treatment, the need for interventional radiology, and the need for surgery. Colonoscopy and computed tomography (CT) management were also evaluated.

Before PSM, there was no significant difference in mortality (1.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.133) between weekend and weekday admissions. After PSM with MI, 1,976 cases were matched for each admission. Mortality was not significantly different for weekend admissions compared with weekday admissions (odds ratio [OR] 1.437, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.785-2.630; p = 0.340). No significant difference was found with other secondary outcomes in weekend admissions except for blood transfusion (OR 1.239, 95% CI 1.084-1.417; p = 0.006). Weekend admission had a negative effect on early colonoscopy (OR 0.536, 95% CI 0.471-0.609; p < 0.001). Meanwhile, urgent CT remained significantly higher in weekend admissions (OR 1.466, 95% CI 1.295-1.660; p < 0.001).

Weekend admissions decrease early colonoscopy and increase urgent CT but do not affect mortality or other outcomes except transfusion.

Stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) directly indicate a need for endoscopic therapy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Colonoscopy would be prioritized for patients with highly suspected SRH, but the predictors of colonic SRH remain unclear. We aimed to construct a predictive model for the efficient detection of SRH using a nationwide cohort.

We retrospectively analyzed 8360 patients admitted through hospital emergency departments for acute LGIB in the CODE BLUE-J Study (49 hospitals throughout Japan). All patients underwent inpatient colonoscopy. To develop an SRH predictive model, 4863 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, colonoscopic factors (timing, preparation, and devices), and computed tomography (CT) extravasation were extensively assessed. The performance of the model was externally validated in 3497 patients.

Colonic SRH was detected in 28% of patients. A novel predictive model for detecting SRH (CS-NEED score: ColonoScopic factors, No abdominal pain, Elevated PT-INR, Extravasation on CT, and DOAC use) showed high performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.74 for derivation and 0.73 for external validation). This score was also highly predictive of active bleeding (AUC 0.73 for derivation and 0.76 for external validation). Patients with low (0-6), intermediate (7-8), and high (9-12) scores in the external validation cohort had SRH identification rates of 20%, 31%, and 64%, respectively (P < 0.001 for trend).

A novel predictive model for colonic SRH identification (CS-NEED score) can specify colonoscopies likely to achieve endoscopic therapy in acute LGIB. Using the model during initial management would contribute to finding and treating SRH efficiently.

Length of stay (LOS) in hospital affects cost, patient quality of life, and hospital management; however, existing gastrointestinal bleeding models applicable at hospital admission have not focused on LOS. We aimed to construct a predictive model for LOS in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB).

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 8,547 patients emergently hospitalized for ALGIB at 49 hospitals (the CODE BLUE-J Study). A predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed using the baseline characteristics of 7,107 patients and externally validated in 1,440 patients. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis assessed the impact of additional variables during hospitalization on LOS.

Focusing on baseline characteristics, a predictive model for prolonged hospital stay was developed, the LONG-HOSP score, which consisted of low body mass index, laboratory data, old age, nondrinker status, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, facility with ≥800 beds, heart rate, oral antithrombotic agent use, symptoms, systolic blood pressure, performance status, and past medical history. The score showed relatively high performance in predicting prolonged hospital stay and high hospitalization costs (area under the curve: 0.70 and 0.73 for derivation, respectively, and 0.66 and 0.71 for external validation, respectively). Next, we focused on in-hospital management. Diagnosis of colitis or colorectal cancer, rebleeding, and the need for blood transfusion, interventional radiology, and surgery prolonged LOS, regardless of the LONG-HOSP score. By contrast, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

At hospital admission for ALGIB, our novel predictive model stratified patients by their risk of prolonged hospital stay. During hospitalization, early colonoscopy and endoscopic treatment shortened LOS.

While short and long attachment caps are available for colonoscopy, it is unclear which type is more appropriate for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification in acute hematochezia. This study aimed to compare the performance of short versus long caps in acute hematochezia diagnoses and outcomes.

We selected 6460 patients who underwent colonoscopy with attachment caps from 10 342 acute hematochezia cases in the CODE BLUE-J study. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics between short and long cap users. Then, the proportion of definitive or presumptive bleeding etiologies found on the initial colonoscopy and SRH identification rates were compared. We also evaluated rates of blood transfusions, interventional radiology, or surgery, as well as the rate of rebleeding and mortality within 30 days after the initial colonoscopy.

A total of 3098 patients with acute hematochezia (1549 short cap and 1549 long cap users) were selected for PSM. The rate of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) diagnosis was significantly higher in long cap users (P = 0.006). While the two groups had similar rates of the other bleeding etiologies, the frequency of unknown etiologies was significantly lower in long cap users (P < 0.001). The rate of SRH with active bleeding was significantly higher in long cap users (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not differ significantly.

Compared to that with short caps, long cap-assisted colonoscopy is superior for the diagnosis of acute hematochezia, especially CDB, and the identification of active bleeding.