Evidence Hub

A prospective cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

V. Shenoy, Sarina Shah, Sathish Kumar, Deepu David, Karthik Gunasekaran, G. Priya, B. Selvaraj, K. P. Prabhakar Abhilash

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2021

210 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background: Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a common presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), and is associated with re-bleeding and significant mortality. Although several studies have described etiology and outcome of UGI bleeding, few have been done in the EDs. Materials and Methods: This prospective observational cohort study included all patients presenting with hematemesis or melena, between June 2016 and January 2017 to the ED. Demographic data, risk factors, endoscopy findings and prognosticating scores were noted. Patients were followed up through telephonic communication after 3 months to assess re-bleeding rate and mortality. Results: The study cohort included 210 patients with a male predominance (76.2%). The mean (SD) age was 51 (16.8) years. They presented with either hematemesis (33.8%), melena (28.6%), or both (37.6%). One third (35.7%) had variceal bleed, 21% had peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and 43.3%bled due to other etiology. UGI scopy was performed in 85.2% of patients with banding (25.1%) and sclerotherapy (14%) being the most frequently performed procedures. Endoscopic intervention was not required in 58.6%of patients. Packed red cells were transfused in 46.7% patients. The 48-h re-bleed rate among variceal bleeders was 5.3% and 11.4% among peptic ulcer bleeders. The 3-month re-bleeding rate was 42.9% and the 3-month mortality rate was 17.5% among the variceal bleeders and the same was 5.6% and 2.8%, respectively, among the peptic ulcer…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 210 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free