Rahul Karna, Bandhul Hans, Thayer Nasereddin, Dhruv Chaudhary, Manish Dhawan
{"title":"上消化道出血机械疗法与热疗的比较:疗效分析。","authors":"Rahul Karna, Bandhul Hans, Thayer Nasereddin, Dhruv Chaudhary, Manish Dhawan","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2024.2381180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a complication of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and direct oral anticoagulant therapy (DOAC). There is a lack of data comparing mechanical therapy (clips) with thermal therapy in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing urgent/emergent endoscopy for NVUGIB while being on DAPT or DOAC. Patients who had DAPT/DOAC held as per American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines were excluded from the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 122 patients were included in the study. There was no difference in primary hemostasis, rebleeding rate, rescue hemostatic procedure, and 30-day mortality between the mechanical and thermal therapy groups. The mechanical therapy group had a significantly higher rate of prolonged length of stay (61.2% vs 38.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), serious clinical outcomes (56% vs 37.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.04), and intensive care unit admissions (50% vs 20.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.001) than the thermal therapy group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients on DAPT/DOAC presenting with NVUGIB can undergo mechanical or thermal endoscopic intervention without a significant difference in achieving primary hemostasis, rebleeding, requiring a secondary procedure, or mortality outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":"37 5","pages":"734-741"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of mechanical and thermal therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an analysis of efficacy outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Rahul Karna, Bandhul Hans, Thayer Nasereddin, Dhruv Chaudhary, Manish Dhawan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08998280.2024.2381180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a complication of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and direct oral anticoagulant therapy (DOAC). There is a lack of data comparing mechanical therapy (clips) with thermal therapy in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing urgent/emergent endoscopy for NVUGIB while being on DAPT or DOAC. Patients who had DAPT/DOAC held as per American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines were excluded from the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 122 patients were included in the study. There was no difference in primary hemostasis, rebleeding rate, rescue hemostatic procedure, and 30-day mortality between the mechanical and thermal therapy groups. The mechanical therapy group had a significantly higher rate of prolonged length of stay (61.2% vs 38.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), serious clinical outcomes (56% vs 37.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.04), and intensive care unit admissions (50% vs 20.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.001) than the thermal therapy group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients on DAPT/DOAC presenting with NVUGIB can undergo mechanical or thermal endoscopic intervention without a significant difference in achieving primary hemostasis, rebleeding, requiring a secondary procedure, or mortality outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings\",\"volume\":\"37 5\",\"pages\":\"734-741\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332638/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2381180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2381180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:非静脉曲张性上消化道出血(NVUGIB)是双重抗血小板疗法(DAPT)和直接口服抗凝疗法(DOAC)的并发症之一。在这一人群中,缺乏比较机械疗法(夹子)和热疗法的数据:我们对因 NVUGIB 而接受紧急/急诊内镜检查,同时正在服用 DAPT 或 DOAC 的患者进行了回顾性病历审查。根据美国胃肠道内镜学会指南服用 DAPT/DOAC 的患者不在研究范围内:研究共纳入了 122 名患者。机械治疗组和热疗组在初次止血、再出血率、止血抢救程序和 30 天死亡率方面没有差异。机械治疗组的住院时间延长率(61.2% vs 38.9%,P = 0.02)、严重临床后果(56% vs 37.5%,P = 0.04)和重症监护室入院率(50% vs 20.8%,P = 0.001)明显高于热疗组:结论:接受DAPT/DOAC治疗的NVUGIB患者可以接受机械或热内镜介入治疗,在实现初步止血、再出血、需要二次手术或死亡率方面没有显著差异。
Comparison of mechanical and thermal therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an analysis of efficacy outcomes.
Background: Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a complication of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and direct oral anticoagulant therapy (DOAC). There is a lack of data comparing mechanical therapy (clips) with thermal therapy in this population.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing urgent/emergent endoscopy for NVUGIB while being on DAPT or DOAC. Patients who had DAPT/DOAC held as per American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines were excluded from the study.
Results: A total of 122 patients were included in the study. There was no difference in primary hemostasis, rebleeding rate, rescue hemostatic procedure, and 30-day mortality between the mechanical and thermal therapy groups. The mechanical therapy group had a significantly higher rate of prolonged length of stay (61.2% vs 38.9%, P = 0.02), serious clinical outcomes (56% vs 37.5%, P = 0.04), and intensive care unit admissions (50% vs 20.8%, P = 0.001) than the thermal therapy group.
Conclusion: Patients on DAPT/DOAC presenting with NVUGIB can undergo mechanical or thermal endoscopic intervention without a significant difference in achieving primary hemostasis, rebleeding, requiring a secondary procedure, or mortality outcomes.