PubMed · 1673512
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B S Lewis. 1991-05-04. Small-bowel enteroscopy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91738-g
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: While the effectiveness of upper endoscopy has been established for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage, its optimal timing has not been clearly defined. Early endoscopy has been advocated for its ability to achieve prompt diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic hemostasis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early vs delayed endoscopy improves patient and economic outcomes for all risk groups with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage. METHODS: A systematic review of 3 computerized databases (MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) was performed along with hand searching of published abstracts to identify English-language citations from 1980 to 2000. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met explicit inclusion criteria. The highest-quality study examining outcomes in low-risk patients found no significant complications at 1-month follow-up for any outpatients managed with early endoscopy. The largest randomized trial of high-risk patients showed no mortality benefit but a significant decrease in transfusion requirements with early endoscopy. Seven of the 8 studies examining the effect of early endoscopy on length of stay as a measure of resource utilization demonstrated a significant reduction compared with that of delayed endoscopy. However, most included studies were found to suffer from 1 or more potentially significant methodologic shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of existing data suggest that early endoscopy is safe and effective for all risk groups. The clinical and economic outcomes of early endoscopy should be confirmed in additional well-designed randomized controlled trials. Given the strength of the evidence, efforts to develop a more standardized and time-sensitive approach to acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage should be undertaken.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wider use of endoscopic hemostasis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has reduced significantly the need for operation. Nevertheless, surgery still plays a pivotal role. Failure to control bleeding endoscopically should not delay surgery when necessary, and a close cooperation between endoscopists and surgeons is essential. Initial endoscopy stops the bleeding in approximately 94% of patients and helps to identify those patients with a high or low risk of rebleeding. High-risk patients should be examined for rebleeding by clinical and endoscopic assessment within at least the first 2-3 days. Large ulcers are the most likely to rebleed, and in elderly patients with severe comorbidity showing little or no healing tendency, they benefit from repeated fibrin glue treatment. In cases of rebleeding despite initial endoscopic hemostasis and conservative treatment, another attempt to stop the hemorrhage endoscopically is justified in most patients. A subgroup of patients who are old, suffering from hypotension due to rebleeding, with large ulcers and several other illnesses should undergo surgery immediately because endoscopic intervention often fails, and these patients deteriorate quickly. The surgical procedure should be limited to safe hemostasis.