Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Factors Associated with Rebleeding in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Analysis of the Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding (K-PUB) Study

Joon Sung Kim1, Byung-Wook Kim1, Sung Min Park1, Ki-Nam Shim2, Seong Woo Jeon3, Sang-Wook Kim4, Yong Chan Lee5, Hee Seok Moon6, Si Hyung Lee7, Woon Tae Jung8, Jin Il Kim9, Kyoung Oh Kim10, Jong-Jae Park11, Woo Chul Chung12, Jeong Hwan Kim13, Gwang Ho Baik14, Jung Hwan Oh15, Sun Moon Kim16, Hyun Soo Kim17, Chang Heon Yang18, Jin Tae Jung19, Chul Hyun Lim20, Hyun Joo Song21, Yong Sik Kim22, Gwang Ha Kim23, Jie-Hyun Kim24, Jae-Il Chung25, Jun Haeng Lee26, Min Ho Choi27, Jong-Kyoung Choi28

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 3Deparment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 4Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea, 5Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea, 8Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea, 9Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 10Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea, 11Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea, 12Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea, 13Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 14Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea, 15Department of Internal Medicine, St. Paul Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 16Department of Internal Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea, 17Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea, 18Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea, 19Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea, 20Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 21Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea, 22Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, 23Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea, 24Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 25Department of Internal Medicine, Sahmyook Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 26Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 27Department of Internal Medicine, Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwaseong, Korea, 28Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Byung-Wook Kim, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21431, Korea, Tel: +82-32-280-5052, Fax: +82-32-280-5987, E-mail: gastro@catholic.ac.kr

Received: March 22, 2017; Revised: July 10, 2017; Accepted: September 14, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2018;12(3):271-277. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17138

Published online February 8, 2018, Published date May 31, 2018

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims

Rebleeding is associated with mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), and risk stratification is important for the management of these patients. The purpose of our study was to examine the risk factors associated with rebleeding in patients with PUB.

Methods

The Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding registry is a large prospectively collected database of patients with PUB who were hospitalized between 2014 and 2015 at 28 medical centers in Korea. We examined the basic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients in this registry. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with rebleeding.

Results

In total, 904 patients with PUB were registered, and 897 patients were analyzed. Rebleeding occurred in 7.1% of the patients (64), and the 30-day mortality was 1.0% (nine patients). According to the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for rebleeding were the presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and hematemesis/hematochezia as initial presentations.

Conclusions

The presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and initial presentations with hematemesis/hematochezia can be indicators of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The wide use of proton pump inhibitors and prompt endoscopic interventions may explain the low incidence of rebleeding and low mortality rates in Korea.

Keywords: Peptic ulcer hemorrhage, Rebleeding, Risk factors

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common medical emergency and cause of hospital admission.1 Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) accounts for the majority of NVUGIB and is a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and health care expenditure.2 Despite advances in medications and therapeutic techniques, the rebleeding and mortality rates remain unchanged at 5% to 8% over the past 30 years.35 Re-bleeding has been reported to be a major factor associated with mortality in PUB and often prevents early discharge from hospitals.6,7 Therefore, prediction of rebleeding is important in determining whether a patient needs close monitoring or admission to the intensive care unit. Second look endoscopy performed for high-risk patients and early discharge of selected low-risk patients may be cost effective in this regard.8,9 A number of risk factors have been proposed as predictors of recurrent bleeding after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and several risk models have been developed to aid in initial decision making.1013 However, these studies included a mixed population of acute UGIB. Few studies have focused on rebleeding as an adverse outcome after PUB.1315 Also, most of these studies were performed before the broad use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and before the development or wide spread use of current endoscopic hemostatic instruments. Few have reported the risk factors of rebleeding with regard to the recent changes in medical therapy such as PPIs and new endoscopic hemostatic therapies. New data regarding risk factors of rebleeding and risk stratification based on recent international guidelines are warranted.14 The main aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with rebleeding for PUB in the current era of PPI use and endoscopic hemostasis.

1. The K-PUB initiative and data collection

This was a prospective cohort study and 28 centers across Korea participated in the Korean Registry on Peptic Ulcer Bleeding (K-PUB) study group. Specially trained research assistants registered the patients immediately after endoscopic examination on web-based system. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each hospital and was registered at Clinicaltrial.gov. (NCT02152904). All patients gave written informed consent to participate in our study before the endoscopy.

2. Patient population

All patients that presented with overt UGIB were considered for enrollment. Patients with a history of hematemesis/coffee ground vomiting, melena, hematochezia, or a combination of any of the above received endoscopy. If endoscopic findings revealed peptic ulcers the patients were eligible for enrollment. Patients in whom the source of bleeding was other than PUB were excluded (varices, hemorrhagic erosive gastritis, Mallory-Weiss tears, Dieulafoy’s lesions, vascular ectasia, and malignancies). When the lesion was turned out to be malignant after histopathologic review, the data was discarded.

3. Study variables

Recorded information included the following independent variables: demographic information (age, sex, alcohol, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, comorbidities, and medication), physical examinations (height, weight, blood pressure, pulse rate), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification,15 initial laboratory data (complete blood count, blood urea nitrogen [BUN], creatinine, albumin), endoscopic components (time to endoscopy, experience of endoscopists, Forrest classification, method and results of endoscopic hemostasis), pharmacologic therapy, and performance of other therapies (surgery, angiography). Presence of Helicobacter pylori infection was determined by histologic examination or rapid urease test from biopsies taken during the examination. Comorbidity was defined as follows: cardiovascular disease included cardiac arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and chronic heart failure. Pulmonary disease included both chronic (e.g., bronchitis or chronic obstructive lung disease) and acute (e.g., pneumonia) conditions. Kidney failure included both mild forms (e.g., abnormal serum creatinine value) and severe forms (e.g., need for dialysis). Liver failure included both mild forms (e.g., having an abnormal serum bilirubin value) and severe forms (e.g., end-stage liver failure). Previous diagnoses of malignancies were also included. Medications were defined as antiplatelets (including aspirin), anticoagulants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids. Patients who took more than one of the aforementioned medication were classified as multidrug. Information of patients who used one of these drugs within 1 week of ulcer bleeding was recorded. Endoscopy performed between 12:00 AM Monday and 11:59 PM Friday were classified as weekdays. Time to endoscopy was calculated from presentation to emergency room or the first documentation of bleeding if it occurred in an inpatient.

4. Endoscopic evaluation

An ulcer was defined as a lesion with loss of mucosal integrity and continuity of ≥5 mm. Bleeding activity was classified according to the modified Forrest classification.16 Endoscopic hemostasis was performed at the discretion of the endoscopist and included thermal coagulation, hemoclipping, and epinephrine injection. In case of more than one ulcer, the ulcer with the most severe Forrest classification was used in the classification and analysis.

5. Outcomes

The outcomes included the frequency of rebleeding, surgical therapy or angiography, and mortality. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with rebleeding within 30 days after initial hemostasis. Rebleeding was defined as recurrent hematemesis, coffee ground vomiting, melena, hematochezia, and a drop in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL after the initial hemostasis. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the need for radiographic intervention or surgery and the in-hospital mortality rates were also examined.

6. Data analysis

All the dependent variables were presented as descriptive data. All continuous data were expressed as means±standard deviation. The statistical difference of baseline characteristics between rebleeding and non-rebleeding groups were assessed using the Student t-test for continuous variables and chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Univariate analysis was performed to assess risk factors related to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis using a selection of variables significant at the 0.10 level by univariate analysis was applied to assess independent risk factors associated with rebleeding.

1. Study population

Between May 2014 and March 2015, 904 patients from 28 centers all over the country with PUB were registered in the K-PUB data base and 891 patients were analyzed (Fig. 1). Descriptive data are presented in Table 1. Median age was 63 years and 76% were males. Antiplatelets (including aspirin) were the most common medications used followed by NSAIDs, anticoagulants, and steroids. Intravenous PPIs were used in 96% of patients. The average time to endoscopy was 14 hours. Second look endoscopy was performed in 71% of patients. H. pylori infection status was examined in 798 patients and 302 were positive for H. pylori infection (37.8%). Rebleeding occurred in 7.1% (64 patients) and 30 day mortality was 1.0% (nine patients). Two patients expired due to bleeding related complications and the remaining patients expired due to their underlying comorbidities.

2. Endoscopic findings and treatment

Table 2 shows endoscopic findings and clinical outcomes. Five patients who failed to achieve initial endoscopic hemostasis received radiographic interventions and two patients received surgery. Gastric ulcers were more common than duodenal ulcers (60.9% vs 29.9%). Sixty-nine patients had active arterial bleeding, 224 had oozing, 290 had nonbleeding visible vessel, 141 had adherent clots, 146 had flat hematins, and 21 had clean ulcers. A total of 675 patients (75.8%) were treated endoscopically. Three hundred seventy-seven patients among 675 patients (42.3%) received combination endoscopic hemostasis (e.g., epinephrine injection plus thermal coagulation or hemoclipping, thermal coagulation plus hemoclipping). The remaining 298 patients (33.4%) received single therapy (epinephrine injection, hemoclip, band ligation, and thermocoagulation).

3. Comparison of baseline characteristics between groups

There were no significant differences between rebleeding and non-rebleeding groups in male to female ratio, Forrest classification, time to endoscopy, and rate of H. pylori infection (Table 3). Patients in the rebleeding group were older (67.8±14.4 vs 62.2±15.2, p=0.005), more frequent users of NSAIDs (25.8% vs 12.2%, p=0.002), and multidrugs (25.8% vs 7.6%, p=0.000). Albumin levels were lower in the rebleeding group (3.0 vs 3.3, p=0.000). Patients presented with hematemesis/hematochezia (53.2 vs 34.7, p=0.003) and required transfusion more often in the rebleeding group (77.4% vs 62.7%, p=0.020).

4. Predictive factors for 30-day rebleeding

Table 4 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for factors affecting the risk of rebleeding. In univariate analysis, age, use of NSAIDs, steroids, multidrugs, body mass index, albumin, and hematemesis/hematochezia were significantly associated with rebleeding. In multivariate analysis, presence of co-morbidities (odds ratio [OR], 2.947; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.298 to 6.691; p=0.010), the use of multidrugs (OR, 3.105; 95% CI, 1.181 to 8.165; p=0.022), albumin level (OR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.305 to 0.846; p=0.009), and hematemesis/hematochezia (OR, 1.882; 95% CI, 1.008 to 3.256; p=0.024) were independently associated with rebleeding.

Rebleeding in PUB patients have been reported to be associated with increased mortality and hospital admission. Old age, shock, poor overall health status, comorbid illness, and low initial hemoglobin levels have been reported to be associated with rebleeding.17 A meta-analysis reported high serum C-reactive protein levels, hemodynamic instability and low hemoglobin levels as risk factors of rebleeding for peptic ulcers.18 However, most of the studies included in this analysis were performed in pre-PPI era and endoscopic treatment was very limited. The strength of this study is nationwide study recruiting patients from 28 centers in Korea in a short period, less than a year.

In this study, we described factors that were independently associated with rebleeding in a prospective cohort of 897 patients with PUB. Current guidelines recommend that risk stratification based on prognostic scores for patients presenting with NVUGIB.19 However, these scoring systems are difficult to calculate and a recent survey revealed that only 30% of physicians used these scoring systems for evaluation of a patient with NVUGIB.20 In our study, presence of comorbidities, use of multidrugs, albumin levels, and initial presentation of hematemesis/hematochezia were identified as indicators of rebleeding in PUB patients. Present risk assessment tools do not take account of patients taking drugs and our results indicate that this may be important in risk assessment.

A recent study reported that an increasing BUN at 24 hours to be a predictor of worse outcomes in patients with NVUGIB.21 The authors hypothesized under-resuscitation leading to prerenal azotemia as the reason for the association of a rising BUN and worse clinical outcomes. We were not able to measure the change in BUN 24 hours after presentation but BUN levels tended to be higher in the rebleeding group. Collectively, these findings emphasize the importance of fluid resuscitation in patients presenting with NVUGIB.

A rebleeding rate of 7.1% in our study was significantly lower than those reported in previous studies. A Canadian registry reported rebleeding, surgery, and mortality rates of 14.1%, 6.5%, and 5.4%, respectively.4 In that study, intravenous PPI therapy was used in 56% of the patients and repeated endoscopy was performed in 25% of the patients. In contrast, intravenous PPIs were used for 96% of patients and the vast majority of patients received second-look endoscopy in our study. Although, routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended for the management of PUB, it may be effective in patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding.22 Mortality occurred in nine patients (1%) and is lower than previous mortality rates related to bleeding ulcers of 7.4% to 11%.2325 However, our results are in concordance with a recent study that reported mortality rates of 0.7%.26 Endoscopic hemostasis, and PPI use have been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding and mortality after NVUGIB. High-dose PPI therapy has been demonstrated to significantly reduce rebleeding in patients with high-risk stigmata following endoscopic therapy.2729 The low rebleeding and mortality rates in our study may be attributed to these factors.

There are some limitations to our study. Factors that may be associated with rebleeding such as ulcer size and location were not investigated in our study. Written informed consent was obligatory for enrollment and patients who were critically ill may not have been included in our study. This may have resulted in the low rebleeding and mortality rates of our study.

In conclusion, presence of comorbidities, use of multidrugs, albumin levels, and initial presentation with hematemesis/hematochezia were associated with rebleeding and should be carefully investigated for patients triage and management. The wide use of PPI and prompt endoscopic intervention may be the reason for the low rebleeding and mortality rates in Korea.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

This study was granted by National Evidence-based Health-care Collaborating Agency of Korea (HI10C2020).

Fig. 1.Flow chart of patients included in this study.
GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Baseline and Clinical Characteristics of the Patients (n=891)

Measure Value
Male sex 679 (76.2)
Age, yr 63±15
Alcohol 386 (43.3)
Smoking 309 (34.7)
Hypertension* 434 (49.0)
Diabetes mellitus* 211 (23.8)
Comorbidity* 415 (46.8)
Drugs*
 Anti-platelets 297 (33.4)
 Anticoagulants 51 (5.7)
 NSAIDs 117 (13.1)
 Steroids 19 (2.1)
Body mass index, kg/m2 22.9±3.4
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg 116±22
Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg 70±15
Pulse rates, /min 93±21
Hemoglobin, g/dL 9.2±5.0
White blood cell, /mm3 11,396±7,042
Blood urea nitrogen, mg/dL 42.3±37.0
Albumin, g/dL 3.3±0.6
Mental status (alert) 871 (97.8)
Endoscopy (weekdays) 598 (67.1)
Experience (≥3 yr) 315 (35.4)

Data are presented as the number (%) or mean±SD.

NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

The data were missing for certain patients.


Endoscopic Findings and Clinical Outcomes of 891 Study Patients

Measure No. (%)
Location
 Gastric 543 (60.9)
 Duodenum 264 (29.9)
 Both 84 (9.4)
Forrest classification
 Ia 69 (7.7)
 Ib 224 (25.1)
 IIa 290 (32.5)
 IIb 141 (15.8)
 IIc 146 (16.4)
 III 21 (2.4)
Endoscopic hemostasis 675 (75.8)
 Monotherapy 298 (33.4)
 Combined therapy 377 (42.3)
Second look endoscopy 616 (71.0)
30 Day-rebleeding rate 64 (7.2)
30 Day-mortality rate 9 (1.0)
Transfusion 568 (63.7)
Transfusion units* 3.2±2.4

Mean±SD.


Comparison of Patients with and without Rebleeding

Measure No rebleeding (n=829) Rebleeding (n=62) p-value
Male sex 633 (76.4) 46 (74.2) 0.700
Age, yr 62.2±15.2 67.8±14.4 0.005
Alcohol 361 (43.5) 25 (40.3) 0.621
Smoking 289 (34.9) 20 (32.3) 0.678
Hypertension* 401 (48.7) 33 (53.2) 0.488
Diabetes mellitus* 197 (23.9) 14 (22.6) 0.813
Comorbidity* 384 (46.6) 31 (50.0) 0.437
Antiplatelets* 271 (32.7) 26 (41.9) 0.138
Anticoagulants* 46 (5.6) 5 (8.1) 0.412
NSAIDs* 101 (12.2) 16 (25.8) 0.002
Steroids* 15 (1.8) 4 (6.5) 0.037
Multidrug 63 (7.6) 16 (25.8) 0.000
Body mass index, kg/m2 23.0±3.4 22.2±3.3 0.071
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg 116±22 113±25 0.431
Pulse rate, /min 93±22 92±17 0.653
Hemoglobin, g/dL 9.2±5.1 8.9±2.7 0.672
White blood cell, /mm3 11,432±7,174 11,327±5,610 0.910
Platelet, /mm3 236,125±98,510 238,280±78,532 0.866
Blood urea nitrogen, mg/dL 42.2±37.7 49.1±52.0 0.177
Creatinine, mg/dL 1.5±5.0 1.4±1.2 0.872
INR 1.4±3.0 1.2±0.4 0.614
Albumin, g/dL 3.3±0.6 3.0±0.6 0.000
Time to endoscopy 14±5 14±5 0.409
Mental status (alert) 810 (97.7) 61 (98.4) 0.589
ASA (I) 273 (32.9) 15 (24.2) 0.174
Hematemesis/hematochezia* 286 (34.7) 33 (53.2) 0.003
Endoscopy (weekdays) 552 (66.6) 46 (74.2) 0.174
Experience (≥3 yr) 292 (35.2) 23 (37.1) 0.766
Forrest classification 0.205
 Ia 62 (7.5) 7 (11.3)
 Ib 202 (24.4) 22 (35.5)
 IIa 275 (33.2) 15 (24.2)
 IIb 132 (15.9) 9 (14.5)
 IIc 139 (16.8) 7 (11.3)
 III 19 (2.3) 2 (3.2)
Forrest classification high risk group (Ia, Ib, IIa) 539 (65.0) 44 (71.0) 0.342
Monotherapy 278 (45.4) 20 (43.5) 0.806
Transfusion 520 (62.7) 48 (77.4) 0.020
Transfusion units 3±2 6±4 0.000
Second look endoscopy* 563 (69.9) 53 (85.5) 0.090
Helicobacter pylori infection 279 (37.5) 23 (42.6) 0.120

Data are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.

NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; INR, international normalized ratio; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology.

The data were missing for certain patients;

H. pylori infection was not examined in 93 patients.


Predictive Factors Associated with Rebleeding According to Univariate and Multivariate Regression Analyses

Measure Univariate OR (95% CI) p-value Multivariate OR (95% CI) p-value
Male sex 1.123 (0.622–2.028) 0.700
Age 1.027 (1.008–1.046) 0.005
Comorbidity 1.229 (0.661–2.286) 0.514 2.947 (1.298–6.691) 0.010
Systolic blood pressure 0.995 (0.984–1.007) 0.430
Pulse rate 0.997 (0.984–1.010) 0.651
Antiplatelet 1.766 (0.670–4.653) 0.250
Anticoagulant 1.491 (0.570–3.900) 0.415
NSAIDs 2.504 (1.366–4.588) 0.003
Steroids 3.738 (1.202–11.625) 0.023
Multidrug 4.224 (2.263–7.884) 0.000 3.105 (1.181–8.165) 0.022
Body mass index 0.929 (0.858–1.006) 0.070
Hemoglobin 0.981 (0.903–1.067) 0.659
White blood cell 1.000 (1.000–1.000) 0.910
Platelet 1.000 (1.000–1.000) 0.866
Blood urea nitrogen 1.003 (0.998–1.007) 0.218
Creatinine 0.994 (0.928–1.065) 0.873
Albumin 0.404 (0.262–0.622) 0.000 0.508 (0.305–0.846) 0.009
Experience (≥3 yr) 1.085 (0.635–1.851) 0.766
Weekends 1.238 (0.706–2.172) 0.456
Time to endoscopy 0.976 (0.923–1.033) 0.409
Hematemesis/hematochezia 2.145 (1.276–3.604) 0.004 1.882 (1.008–3.256) 0.024
Forrest classification high risk group 1.315 (0.746–2.318) 0.343
Monotherapy 0.927 (0.507–1.696) 0.806
Transfusion 2.037 (1.105–3.756) 0.023
Second look endoscopy 0.710 (0.299–1.689) 0.439
Helicobacter pylori infection 0.528 (0.278–1.003) 0.051

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.


  1. Barkun, AN, Bardou, M, and Kuipers, EJ (2010). International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 152, 101-113.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Eisner, F, Hermann, D, Bajaeifer, K, Glatzle, J, Königsrainer, A, and Küper, MA (2017). Gastric ulcer complications after the introduction of proton pump inhibitors into clinical routine: 20-year experience. Visc Med. 33, 221-226.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. van Leerdam, ME, Vreeburg, EM, and Rauws, EA (2003). Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? Time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993/1994 and 2000. Am J Gastroenterol. 98, 1494-1499.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Barkun, A, Sabbah, S, and Enns, R (2004). The Canadian Registry on Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Endoscopy (RUGBE): endoscopic hemostasis and proton pump inhibition are associated with improved outcomes in a real-life setting. Am J Gastroenterol. 99, 1238-1246.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Silverstein, FE, Gilbert, DA, Tedesco, FJ, Buenger, NK, and Persing, J (1981). The national ASGE survey on upper gastrointestinal bleeding. II. Clinical prognostic factors. Gastrointest Endosc. 27, 80-93.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Marmo, R, Koch, M, and Cipolletta, L (2010). Predicting mortality in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeders: validation of the Italian PNED score and prospective comparison with the Rockall score. Am J Gastroenterol. 105, 1284-1291.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Chiu, PW, Ng, EK, and Cheung, FK (2009). Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 7, 311-316.
    CrossRef
  8. Spiegel, BM, Ofman, JJ, Woods, K, and Vakil, NB (2003). Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis: the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies. Am J Gastroenterol. 98, 86-97.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Brullet, E, Campo, R, Calvet, X, Guell, M, Garcia-Monforte, N, and Cabrol, J (2004). A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection. Gastrointest Endosc. 60, 15-21.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Rockall, TA, Logan, RF, Devlin, HB, and Northfield, TC (1996). Selection of patients for early discharge or outpatient care after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 347, 1138-1140.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Saeed, ZA, Winchester, CB, Michaletz, PA, Woods, KL, and Graham, DY (1993). A scoring system to predict rebleeding after endoscopic therapy of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, with a comparison of heat probe and ethanol injection. Am J Gastroenterol. 88, 1842-1849.
    Pubmed
  12. Blatchford, O, Murray, WR, and Blatchford, M (2000). A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 356, 1318-1321.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hay, JA, Lyubashevsky, E, Elashoff, J, Maldonado, L, Weingarten, SR, and Ellrodt, AG (1996). Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage clinical--guideline determining the optimal hospital length of stay. Am J Med. 100, 313-322.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Laine, L, and Jensen, DM (2012). Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 107, 345-360.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Owens, WD, Felts, JA, and Spitznagel, EL (1978). ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 49, 239-243.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Forrest, JA, Finlayson, ND, and Shearman, DJ (1974). Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet. 2, 394-397.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Barkun, A, Bardou, M, Marshall, JK, and Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding Consensus Conference Group (2003). Consensus recommendations for managing patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 139, 843-857.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. García-Iglesias, P, Villoria, A, and Suarez, D (2011). Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 34, 888-900.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Sung, JJ, Chan, FK, and Chen, M (2011). Asia-Pacific Working Group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut. 60, 1170-1177.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Liang, PS, and Saltzman, JR (2014). A national survey on the initial management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol. 48, e93-e98.
    Pubmed
  21. Kumar, NL, Claggett, BL, Cohen, AJ, Nayor, J, and Saltzman, JR (2017). Association between an increase in blood urea nitrogen at 24 hours and worse outcomes in acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 86, 1022-1027.e1.
    CrossRef
  22. Gralnek, IM, Dumonceau, JM, and Kuipers, EJ (2015). Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 47, a1-a46.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Ahmed, A, Armstrong, M, Robertson, I, Morris, AJ, Blatchford, O, and Stanley, AJ (2015). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Scotland 2000–2010: improved outcomes but a significant weekend effect. World J Gastroenterol. 21, 10890-10897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  24. de Carvalho Pedroto, IM, Azevedo Maia, LA, and Durão Salgueiro, PS (2015). Out-of-hours endoscopy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Scand J Gastroenterol. 50, 495-502.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Quan, S, Frolkis, A, and Milne, K (2014). Upper-gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to peptic ulcer disease: incidence and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 20, 17568-17577.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Malmi, H, Kautiainen, H, Virta, LJ, and Färkkilä, MA (2017). Outcomes of patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer disease diagnosed in acute upper endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 29, 1251-1257.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Lin, HJ, Lo, WC, Lee, FY, Perng, CL, and Tseng, GY (1998). A prospective randomized comparative trial showing that omeprazole prevents rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after successful endoscopic therapy. Arch Intern Med. 158, 54-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Lau, JY, Sung, JJ, and Lee, KK (2000). Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med. 343, 310-316.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Leontiadis, GI, Sharma, VK, and Howden, CW (2005). Sysntematic review and meta-analysis: enhanced efficacy of proton-pump inhibitor therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding in Asia. A post hoc analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 21, 1055-1061.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2018; 12(3): 271-277

Published online May 31, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17138

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Factors Associated with Rebleeding in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Analysis of the Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding (K-PUB) Study

Joon Sung Kim1, Byung-Wook Kim1, Sung Min Park1, Ki-Nam Shim2, Seong Woo Jeon3, Sang-Wook Kim4, Yong Chan Lee5, Hee Seok Moon6, Si Hyung Lee7, Woon Tae Jung8, Jin Il Kim9, Kyoung Oh Kim10, Jong-Jae Park11, Woo Chul Chung12, Jeong Hwan Kim13, Gwang Ho Baik14, Jung Hwan Oh15, Sun Moon Kim16, Hyun Soo Kim17, Chang Heon Yang18, Jin Tae Jung19, Chul Hyun Lim20, Hyun Joo Song21, Yong Sik Kim22, Gwang Ha Kim23, Jie-Hyun Kim24, Jae-Il Chung25, Jun Haeng Lee26, Min Ho Choi27, Jong-Kyoung Choi28

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 3Deparment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 4Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea, 5Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea, 8Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea, 9Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 10Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea, 11Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea, 12Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea, 13Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 14Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea, 15Department of Internal Medicine, St. Paul Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 16Department of Internal Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea, 17Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea, 18Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea, 19Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea, 20Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 21Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea, 22Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, 23Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea, 24Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 25Department of Internal Medicine, Sahmyook Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 26Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 27Department of Internal Medicine, Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwaseong, Korea, 28Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Byung-Wook Kim, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21431, Korea, Tel: +82-32-280-5052, Fax: +82-32-280-5987, E-mail: gastro@catholic.ac.kr

Received: March 22, 2017; Revised: July 10, 2017; Accepted: September 14, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

Rebleeding is associated with mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), and risk stratification is important for the management of these patients. The purpose of our study was to examine the risk factors associated with rebleeding in patients with PUB.

Methods

The Korean Peptic Ulcer Bleeding registry is a large prospectively collected database of patients with PUB who were hospitalized between 2014 and 2015 at 28 medical centers in Korea. We examined the basic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients in this registry. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with rebleeding.

Results

In total, 904 patients with PUB were registered, and 897 patients were analyzed. Rebleeding occurred in 7.1% of the patients (64), and the 30-day mortality was 1.0% (nine patients). According to the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for rebleeding were the presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and hematemesis/hematochezia as initial presentations.

Conclusions

The presence of co-morbidities, use of multiple drugs, albumin levels, and initial presentations with hematemesis/hematochezia can be indicators of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The wide use of proton pump inhibitors and prompt endoscopic interventions may explain the low incidence of rebleeding and low mortality rates in Korea.

Keywords: Peptic ulcer hemorrhage, Rebleeding, Risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common medical emergency and cause of hospital admission.1 Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) accounts for the majority of NVUGIB and is a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and health care expenditure.2 Despite advances in medications and therapeutic techniques, the rebleeding and mortality rates remain unchanged at 5% to 8% over the past 30 years.35 Re-bleeding has been reported to be a major factor associated with mortality in PUB and often prevents early discharge from hospitals.6,7 Therefore, prediction of rebleeding is important in determining whether a patient needs close monitoring or admission to the intensive care unit. Second look endoscopy performed for high-risk patients and early discharge of selected low-risk patients may be cost effective in this regard.8,9 A number of risk factors have been proposed as predictors of recurrent bleeding after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and several risk models have been developed to aid in initial decision making.1013 However, these studies included a mixed population of acute UGIB. Few studies have focused on rebleeding as an adverse outcome after PUB.1315 Also, most of these studies were performed before the broad use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and before the development or wide spread use of current endoscopic hemostatic instruments. Few have reported the risk factors of rebleeding with regard to the recent changes in medical therapy such as PPIs and new endoscopic hemostatic therapies. New data regarding risk factors of rebleeding and risk stratification based on recent international guidelines are warranted.14 The main aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with rebleeding for PUB in the current era of PPI use and endoscopic hemostasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. The K-PUB initiative and data collection

This was a prospective cohort study and 28 centers across Korea participated in the Korean Registry on Peptic Ulcer Bleeding (K-PUB) study group. Specially trained research assistants registered the patients immediately after endoscopic examination on web-based system. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each hospital and was registered at Clinicaltrial.gov. (NCT02152904). All patients gave written informed consent to participate in our study before the endoscopy.

2. Patient population

All patients that presented with overt UGIB were considered for enrollment. Patients with a history of hematemesis/coffee ground vomiting, melena, hematochezia, or a combination of any of the above received endoscopy. If endoscopic findings revealed peptic ulcers the patients were eligible for enrollment. Patients in whom the source of bleeding was other than PUB were excluded (varices, hemorrhagic erosive gastritis, Mallory-Weiss tears, Dieulafoy’s lesions, vascular ectasia, and malignancies). When the lesion was turned out to be malignant after histopathologic review, the data was discarded.

3. Study variables

Recorded information included the following independent variables: demographic information (age, sex, alcohol, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, comorbidities, and medication), physical examinations (height, weight, blood pressure, pulse rate), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification,15 initial laboratory data (complete blood count, blood urea nitrogen [BUN], creatinine, albumin), endoscopic components (time to endoscopy, experience of endoscopists, Forrest classification, method and results of endoscopic hemostasis), pharmacologic therapy, and performance of other therapies (surgery, angiography). Presence of Helicobacter pylori infection was determined by histologic examination or rapid urease test from biopsies taken during the examination. Comorbidity was defined as follows: cardiovascular disease included cardiac arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and chronic heart failure. Pulmonary disease included both chronic (e.g., bronchitis or chronic obstructive lung disease) and acute (e.g., pneumonia) conditions. Kidney failure included both mild forms (e.g., abnormal serum creatinine value) and severe forms (e.g., need for dialysis). Liver failure included both mild forms (e.g., having an abnormal serum bilirubin value) and severe forms (e.g., end-stage liver failure). Previous diagnoses of malignancies were also included. Medications were defined as antiplatelets (including aspirin), anticoagulants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids. Patients who took more than one of the aforementioned medication were classified as multidrug. Information of patients who used one of these drugs within 1 week of ulcer bleeding was recorded. Endoscopy performed between 12:00 AM Monday and 11:59 PM Friday were classified as weekdays. Time to endoscopy was calculated from presentation to emergency room or the first documentation of bleeding if it occurred in an inpatient.

4. Endoscopic evaluation

An ulcer was defined as a lesion with loss of mucosal integrity and continuity of ≥5 mm. Bleeding activity was classified according to the modified Forrest classification.16 Endoscopic hemostasis was performed at the discretion of the endoscopist and included thermal coagulation, hemoclipping, and epinephrine injection. In case of more than one ulcer, the ulcer with the most severe Forrest classification was used in the classification and analysis.

5. Outcomes

The outcomes included the frequency of rebleeding, surgical therapy or angiography, and mortality. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with rebleeding within 30 days after initial hemostasis. Rebleeding was defined as recurrent hematemesis, coffee ground vomiting, melena, hematochezia, and a drop in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL after the initial hemostasis. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the need for radiographic intervention or surgery and the in-hospital mortality rates were also examined.

6. Data analysis

All the dependent variables were presented as descriptive data. All continuous data were expressed as means±standard deviation. The statistical difference of baseline characteristics between rebleeding and non-rebleeding groups were assessed using the Student t-test for continuous variables and chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Univariate analysis was performed to assess risk factors related to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis using a selection of variables significant at the 0.10 level by univariate analysis was applied to assess independent risk factors associated with rebleeding.

RESULTS

1. Study population

Between May 2014 and March 2015, 904 patients from 28 centers all over the country with PUB were registered in the K-PUB data base and 891 patients were analyzed (Fig. 1). Descriptive data are presented in Table 1. Median age was 63 years and 76% were males. Antiplatelets (including aspirin) were the most common medications used followed by NSAIDs, anticoagulants, and steroids. Intravenous PPIs were used in 96% of patients. The average time to endoscopy was 14 hours. Second look endoscopy was performed in 71% of patients. H. pylori infection status was examined in 798 patients and 302 were positive for H. pylori infection (37.8%). Rebleeding occurred in 7.1% (64 patients) and 30 day mortality was 1.0% (nine patients). Two patients expired due to bleeding related complications and the remaining patients expired due to their underlying comorbidities.

2. Endoscopic findings and treatment

Table 2 shows endoscopic findings and clinical outcomes. Five patients who failed to achieve initial endoscopic hemostasis received radiographic interventions and two patients received surgery. Gastric ulcers were more common than duodenal ulcers (60.9% vs 29.9%). Sixty-nine patients had active arterial bleeding, 224 had oozing, 290 had nonbleeding visible vessel, 141 had adherent clots, 146 had flat hematins, and 21 had clean ulcers. A total of 675 patients (75.8%) were treated endoscopically. Three hundred seventy-seven patients among 675 patients (42.3%) received combination endoscopic hemostasis (e.g., epinephrine injection plus thermal coagulation or hemoclipping, thermal coagulation plus hemoclipping). The remaining 298 patients (33.4%) received single therapy (epinephrine injection, hemoclip, band ligation, and thermocoagulation).

3. Comparison of baseline characteristics between groups

There were no significant differences between rebleeding and non-rebleeding groups in male to female ratio, Forrest classification, time to endoscopy, and rate of H. pylori infection (Table 3). Patients in the rebleeding group were older (67.8±14.4 vs 62.2±15.2, p=0.005), more frequent users of NSAIDs (25.8% vs 12.2%, p=0.002), and multidrugs (25.8% vs 7.6%, p=0.000). Albumin levels were lower in the rebleeding group (3.0 vs 3.3, p=0.000). Patients presented with hematemesis/hematochezia (53.2 vs 34.7, p=0.003) and required transfusion more often in the rebleeding group (77.4% vs 62.7%, p=0.020).

4. Predictive factors for 30-day rebleeding

Table 4 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for factors affecting the risk of rebleeding. In univariate analysis, age, use of NSAIDs, steroids, multidrugs, body mass index, albumin, and hematemesis/hematochezia were significantly associated with rebleeding. In multivariate analysis, presence of co-morbidities (odds ratio [OR], 2.947; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.298 to 6.691; p=0.010), the use of multidrugs (OR, 3.105; 95% CI, 1.181 to 8.165; p=0.022), albumin level (OR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.305 to 0.846; p=0.009), and hematemesis/hematochezia (OR, 1.882; 95% CI, 1.008 to 3.256; p=0.024) were independently associated with rebleeding.

DISCUSSION

Rebleeding in PUB patients have been reported to be associated with increased mortality and hospital admission. Old age, shock, poor overall health status, comorbid illness, and low initial hemoglobin levels have been reported to be associated with rebleeding.17 A meta-analysis reported high serum C-reactive protein levels, hemodynamic instability and low hemoglobin levels as risk factors of rebleeding for peptic ulcers.18 However, most of the studies included in this analysis were performed in pre-PPI era and endoscopic treatment was very limited. The strength of this study is nationwide study recruiting patients from 28 centers in Korea in a short period, less than a year.

In this study, we described factors that were independently associated with rebleeding in a prospective cohort of 897 patients with PUB. Current guidelines recommend that risk stratification based on prognostic scores for patients presenting with NVUGIB.19 However, these scoring systems are difficult to calculate and a recent survey revealed that only 30% of physicians used these scoring systems for evaluation of a patient with NVUGIB.20 In our study, presence of comorbidities, use of multidrugs, albumin levels, and initial presentation of hematemesis/hematochezia were identified as indicators of rebleeding in PUB patients. Present risk assessment tools do not take account of patients taking drugs and our results indicate that this may be important in risk assessment.

A recent study reported that an increasing BUN at 24 hours to be a predictor of worse outcomes in patients with NVUGIB.21 The authors hypothesized under-resuscitation leading to prerenal azotemia as the reason for the association of a rising BUN and worse clinical outcomes. We were not able to measure the change in BUN 24 hours after presentation but BUN levels tended to be higher in the rebleeding group. Collectively, these findings emphasize the importance of fluid resuscitation in patients presenting with NVUGIB.

A rebleeding rate of 7.1% in our study was significantly lower than those reported in previous studies. A Canadian registry reported rebleeding, surgery, and mortality rates of 14.1%, 6.5%, and 5.4%, respectively.4 In that study, intravenous PPI therapy was used in 56% of the patients and repeated endoscopy was performed in 25% of the patients. In contrast, intravenous PPIs were used for 96% of patients and the vast majority of patients received second-look endoscopy in our study. Although, routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended for the management of PUB, it may be effective in patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding.22 Mortality occurred in nine patients (1%) and is lower than previous mortality rates related to bleeding ulcers of 7.4% to 11%.2325 However, our results are in concordance with a recent study that reported mortality rates of 0.7%.26 Endoscopic hemostasis, and PPI use have been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding and mortality after NVUGIB. High-dose PPI therapy has been demonstrated to significantly reduce rebleeding in patients with high-risk stigmata following endoscopic therapy.2729 The low rebleeding and mortality rates in our study may be attributed to these factors.

There are some limitations to our study. Factors that may be associated with rebleeding such as ulcer size and location were not investigated in our study. Written informed consent was obligatory for enrollment and patients who were critically ill may not have been included in our study. This may have resulted in the low rebleeding and mortality rates of our study.

In conclusion, presence of comorbidities, use of multidrugs, albumin levels, and initial presentation with hematemesis/hematochezia were associated with rebleeding and should be carefully investigated for patients triage and management. The wide use of PPI and prompt endoscopic intervention may be the reason for the low rebleeding and mortality rates in Korea.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was granted by National Evidence-based Health-care Collaborating Agency of Korea (HI10C2020).

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Flow chart of patients included in this study.
GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
Gut and Liver 2018; 12: 271-277https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17138

Table 1 Baseline and Clinical Characteristics of the Patients (n=891)

MeasureValue
Male sex679 (76.2)
Age, yr63±15
Alcohol386 (43.3)
Smoking309 (34.7)
Hypertension*434 (49.0)
Diabetes mellitus*211 (23.8)
Comorbidity*415 (46.8)
Drugs*
 Anti-platelets297 (33.4)
 Anticoagulants51 (5.7)
 NSAIDs117 (13.1)
 Steroids19 (2.1)
Body mass index, kg/m222.9±3.4
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg116±22
Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg70±15
Pulse rates, /min93±21
Hemoglobin, g/dL9.2±5.0
White blood cell, /mm311,396±7,042
Blood urea nitrogen, mg/dL42.3±37.0
Albumin, g/dL3.3±0.6
Mental status (alert)871 (97.8)
Endoscopy (weekdays)598 (67.1)
Experience (≥3 yr)315 (35.4)

Data are presented as the number (%) or mean±SD.

NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

*The data were missing for certain patients.


Table 2 Endoscopic Findings and Clinical Outcomes of 891 Study Patients

MeasureNo. (%)
Location
 Gastric543 (60.9)
 Duodenum264 (29.9)
 Both84 (9.4)
Forrest classification
 Ia69 (7.7)
 Ib224 (25.1)
 IIa290 (32.5)
 IIb141 (15.8)
 IIc146 (16.4)
 III21 (2.4)
Endoscopic hemostasis675 (75.8)
 Monotherapy298 (33.4)
 Combined therapy377 (42.3)
Second look endoscopy616 (71.0)
30 Day-rebleeding rate64 (7.2)
30 Day-mortality rate9 (1.0)
Transfusion568 (63.7)
Transfusion units*3.2±2.4

*Mean±SD.


Table 3 Comparison of Patients with and without Rebleeding

MeasureNo rebleeding (n=829)Rebleeding (n=62)p-value
Male sex633 (76.4)46 (74.2)0.700
Age, yr62.2±15.267.8±14.40.005
Alcohol361 (43.5)25 (40.3)0.621
Smoking289 (34.9)20 (32.3)0.678
Hypertension*401 (48.7)33 (53.2)0.488
Diabetes mellitus*197 (23.9)14 (22.6)0.813
Comorbidity*384 (46.6)31 (50.0)0.437
Antiplatelets*271 (32.7)26 (41.9)0.138
Anticoagulants*46 (5.6)5 (8.1)0.412
NSAIDs*101 (12.2)16 (25.8)0.002
Steroids*15 (1.8)4 (6.5)0.037
Multidrug63 (7.6)16 (25.8)0.000
Body mass index, kg/m223.0±3.422.2±3.30.071
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg116±22113±250.431
Pulse rate, /min93±2292±170.653
Hemoglobin, g/dL9.2±5.18.9±2.70.672
White blood cell, /mm311,432±7,17411,327±5,6100.910
Platelet, /mm3236,125±98,510238,280±78,5320.866
Blood urea nitrogen, mg/dL42.2±37.749.1±52.00.177
Creatinine, mg/dL1.5±5.01.4±1.20.872
INR1.4±3.01.2±0.40.614
Albumin, g/dL3.3±0.63.0±0.60.000
Time to endoscopy14±514±50.409
Mental status (alert)810 (97.7)61 (98.4)0.589
ASA (I)273 (32.9)15 (24.2)0.174
Hematemesis/hematochezia*286 (34.7)33 (53.2)0.003
Endoscopy (weekdays)552 (66.6)46 (74.2)0.174
Experience (≥3 yr)292 (35.2)23 (37.1)0.766
Forrest classification0.205
 Ia62 (7.5)7 (11.3)
 Ib202 (24.4)22 (35.5)
 IIa275 (33.2)15 (24.2)
 IIb132 (15.9)9 (14.5)
 IIc139 (16.8)7 (11.3)
 III19 (2.3)2 (3.2)
Forrest classification high risk group (Ia, Ib, IIa)539 (65.0)44 (71.0)0.342
Monotherapy278 (45.4)20 (43.5)0.806
Transfusion520 (62.7)48 (77.4)0.020
Transfusion units3±26±40.000
Second look endoscopy*563 (69.9)53 (85.5)0.090
Helicobacter pylori infection279 (37.5)23 (42.6)0.120

Data are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.

NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; INR, international normalized ratio; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology.

*The data were missing for certain patients;

H. pylori infection was not examined in 93 patients.


Table 4 Predictive Factors Associated with Rebleeding According to Univariate and Multivariate Regression Analyses

MeasureUnivariate OR (95% CI)p-valueMultivariate OR (95% CI)p-value
Male sex1.123 (0.622–2.028)0.700
Age1.027 (1.008–1.046)0.005
Comorbidity1.229 (0.661–2.286)0.5142.947 (1.298–6.691)0.010
Systolic blood pressure0.995 (0.984–1.007)0.430
Pulse rate0.997 (0.984–1.010)0.651
Antiplatelet1.766 (0.670–4.653)0.250
Anticoagulant1.491 (0.570–3.900)0.415
NSAIDs2.504 (1.366–4.588)0.003
Steroids3.738 (1.202–11.625)0.023
Multidrug4.224 (2.263–7.884)0.0003.105 (1.181–8.165)0.022
Body mass index0.929 (0.858–1.006)0.070
Hemoglobin0.981 (0.903–1.067)0.659
White blood cell1.000 (1.000–1.000)0.910
Platelet1.000 (1.000–1.000)0.866
Blood urea nitrogen1.003 (0.998–1.007)0.218
Creatinine0.994 (0.928–1.065)0.873
Albumin0.404 (0.262–0.622)0.0000.508 (0.305–0.846)0.009
Experience (≥3 yr)1.085 (0.635–1.851)0.766
Weekends1.238 (0.706–2.172)0.456
Time to endoscopy0.976 (0.923–1.033)0.409
Hematemesis/hematochezia2.145 (1.276–3.604)0.0041.882 (1.008–3.256)0.024
Forrest classification high risk group1.315 (0.746–2.318)0.343
Monotherapy0.927 (0.507–1.696)0.806
Transfusion2.037 (1.105–3.756)0.023
Second look endoscopy0.710 (0.299–1.689)0.439
Helicobacter pylori infection0.528 (0.278–1.003)0.051

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.


References

  1. Barkun, AN, Bardou, M, and Kuipers, EJ (2010). International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 152, 101-113.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Eisner, F, Hermann, D, Bajaeifer, K, Glatzle, J, Königsrainer, A, and Küper, MA (2017). Gastric ulcer complications after the introduction of proton pump inhibitors into clinical routine: 20-year experience. Visc Med. 33, 221-226.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. van Leerdam, ME, Vreeburg, EM, and Rauws, EA (2003). Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? Time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993/1994 and 2000. Am J Gastroenterol. 98, 1494-1499.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Barkun, A, Sabbah, S, and Enns, R (2004). The Canadian Registry on Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Endoscopy (RUGBE): endoscopic hemostasis and proton pump inhibition are associated with improved outcomes in a real-life setting. Am J Gastroenterol. 99, 1238-1246.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Silverstein, FE, Gilbert, DA, Tedesco, FJ, Buenger, NK, and Persing, J (1981). The national ASGE survey on upper gastrointestinal bleeding. II. Clinical prognostic factors. Gastrointest Endosc. 27, 80-93.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Marmo, R, Koch, M, and Cipolletta, L (2010). Predicting mortality in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeders: validation of the Italian PNED score and prospective comparison with the Rockall score. Am J Gastroenterol. 105, 1284-1291.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Chiu, PW, Ng, EK, and Cheung, FK (2009). Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 7, 311-316.
    CrossRef
  8. Spiegel, BM, Ofman, JJ, Woods, K, and Vakil, NB (2003). Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis: the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies. Am J Gastroenterol. 98, 86-97.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Brullet, E, Campo, R, Calvet, X, Guell, M, Garcia-Monforte, N, and Cabrol, J (2004). A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection. Gastrointest Endosc. 60, 15-21.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Rockall, TA, Logan, RF, Devlin, HB, and Northfield, TC (1996). Selection of patients for early discharge or outpatient care after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 347, 1138-1140.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Saeed, ZA, Winchester, CB, Michaletz, PA, Woods, KL, and Graham, DY (1993). A scoring system to predict rebleeding after endoscopic therapy of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, with a comparison of heat probe and ethanol injection. Am J Gastroenterol. 88, 1842-1849.
    Pubmed
  12. Blatchford, O, Murray, WR, and Blatchford, M (2000). A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 356, 1318-1321.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hay, JA, Lyubashevsky, E, Elashoff, J, Maldonado, L, Weingarten, SR, and Ellrodt, AG (1996). Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage clinical--guideline determining the optimal hospital length of stay. Am J Med. 100, 313-322.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Laine, L, and Jensen, DM (2012). Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 107, 345-360.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Owens, WD, Felts, JA, and Spitznagel, EL (1978). ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 49, 239-243.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Forrest, JA, Finlayson, ND, and Shearman, DJ (1974). Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet. 2, 394-397.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Barkun, A, Bardou, M, Marshall, JK, and Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding Consensus Conference Group (2003). Consensus recommendations for managing patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 139, 843-857.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. García-Iglesias, P, Villoria, A, and Suarez, D (2011). Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 34, 888-900.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Sung, JJ, Chan, FK, and Chen, M (2011). Asia-Pacific Working Group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut. 60, 1170-1177.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Liang, PS, and Saltzman, JR (2014). A national survey on the initial management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol. 48, e93-e98.
    Pubmed
  21. Kumar, NL, Claggett, BL, Cohen, AJ, Nayor, J, and Saltzman, JR (2017). Association between an increase in blood urea nitrogen at 24 hours and worse outcomes in acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 86, 1022-1027.e1.
    CrossRef
  22. Gralnek, IM, Dumonceau, JM, and Kuipers, EJ (2015). Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 47, a1-a46.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Ahmed, A, Armstrong, M, Robertson, I, Morris, AJ, Blatchford, O, and Stanley, AJ (2015). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Scotland 2000–2010: improved outcomes but a significant weekend effect. World J Gastroenterol. 21, 10890-10897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  24. de Carvalho Pedroto, IM, Azevedo Maia, LA, and Durão Salgueiro, PS (2015). Out-of-hours endoscopy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Scand J Gastroenterol. 50, 495-502.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Quan, S, Frolkis, A, and Milne, K (2014). Upper-gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to peptic ulcer disease: incidence and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 20, 17568-17577.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Malmi, H, Kautiainen, H, Virta, LJ, and Färkkilä, MA (2017). Outcomes of patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer disease diagnosed in acute upper endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 29, 1251-1257.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Lin, HJ, Lo, WC, Lee, FY, Perng, CL, and Tseng, GY (1998). A prospective randomized comparative trial showing that omeprazole prevents rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after successful endoscopic therapy. Arch Intern Med. 158, 54-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Lau, JY, Sung, JJ, and Lee, KK (2000). Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med. 343, 310-316.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Leontiadis, GI, Sharma, VK, and Howden, CW (2005). Sysntematic review and meta-analysis: enhanced efficacy of proton-pump inhibitor therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding in Asia. A post hoc analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 21, 1055-1061.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.18 No.2
March, 2024

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office