2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.07.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High-risk ED patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage undergoing emergency or urgent endoscopy: a retrospective analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
60
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although there was no evidence of a better clinical outcome-i.e. rebleeding and mortality-after a very early endoscopy in some retrospective series [19][20][21][22] , our study shows that endoscopic therapy is necessary in most of the clinically severe cases. Since an effective endoscopic haemostasis has been associated with a better outcome for both variceal and non-variceal UGIB [8,9] , it may be conservatively advised to perform a very early endoscopy, at least in patients in more severe conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although there was no evidence of a better clinical outcome-i.e. rebleeding and mortality-after a very early endoscopy in some retrospective series [19][20][21][22] , our study shows that endoscopic therapy is necessary in most of the clinically severe cases. Since an effective endoscopic haemostasis has been associated with a better outcome for both variceal and non-variceal UGIB [8,9] , it may be conservatively advised to perform a very early endoscopy, at least in patients in more severe conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, within this period of time, it is still unclear whether it should be performed either very early-i.e. within 2 h-or in a more delayed interval, such as after 6, 12 or 24 h. In particular, some retrospective series did not show a clear advantage for early versus delayed urgent endoscopy [19][20][21][22] . However, in clinical practice, the endoscopist may be expected to be called by the emergency department immediately after the hospital admission of the bleeding patient, making it his responsibility to proceed towards an immediate procedure or delaying it up to 12 or 24 h. Legal aspects are clearly entailed in this decisional process, so that, in the absence of clear data, endoscopists may be expected to rush in the endoscopic units, even in low-risk cases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Randomized controlled trials [2][3][4] and observational studies [5][6][7] have compared the outcome of endoscopy performed within 2 to 24 hours with a later endoscopy, without finding any difference in M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT mortality. Limitations of existing randomized controlled trials include insufficient inclusion of highrisk patients resulting in low mortality rates (0%-3.7%), [2][3][4] small sample sizes (n=93-325), [2][3][4] exclusion of patients with hemodynamic instability, 2 lack of use of proton pump inhibitors, 4 and lack of power calculation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trois essais randomisés et contrôlés et une méta-analyse n'ont pas montré de bénéfice à la réalisation plus précoce (< 12 heures) d'une EOGD pour ce qui concerne la récidive hémorragique (odds ratio [1,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. L'endoscopie très précoce pourrait toutefois s'avérer utile pour les patients à haut risque dans certains travaux [15,19,21,24].…”
Section: Hémorragie Digestive Et Patients à Haut Risqueunclassified