Dataset Information

Gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings in critically and non-critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) and COKA registries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased.

Methods

We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings.

Results

A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID-19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown.

Conclusion

Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Zellmer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8598966 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings in critically and non-critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) and COKA registries.

Zellmer Stephan S Hanses Frank F Muzalyova Anna A Classen Johanna J Braun Georg G Piepel Christiane C Erber Johanna J Pilgram Lisa L Walter Lorenz L Göpel Siri S Wille Kai K Hower Martin M Rüthrich Maria Madeleine MM Rupp Jan J Degenhardt Christian C Voigt Ingo I Borgmann Stefan S Stecher Melanie M Jakob Carolin C Dhillon Christine C Messmann Helmut H Ebigbo Alanna A Römmele Christoph C

United European gastroenterology journal 20211015 9

<h4>Background</h4>Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased.<h4>Methods</h4>We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing o ...[more]

PMID: 34655180

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) may be a severe condition in immunocompromised patients and may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed to describe the clinical spectrum of critically ill immunocompromised patients with GIB and identify risk factors associated with mortality and severe GIB defined by hemorrhagic shock, hyperlactatemia and/or the transfusion of more than 5 red blood cells units. Finally, we compared this cohort with a control population of non-immunocompromised admitted in ICU for GIB.ResultsRetrospective study in 3 centers including immunocompromised patients with GIB admitted in ICU from January, 1st 2010 to December, 31rd 2019. Risk factors for mortality and severe GIB were assessed by logistic regression. Immunocompromised patients were matched with a control group of patients admitted in ICU with GIB. A total of 292 patients were analyzed in the study, including 141 immunocompromised patients (compared to a control group of 151 patients). Among immunocompromised patients, upper GIB was more frequent (73%) than lower GIB (27%). By multivariate analysis, severe GIB was associated with male gender (OR 4.48, CI95% 1.75-11.42, p = 0.00), upper GIB (OR 2.88, CI95% 1.11-7.46, p = 0.03) and digestive malignant infiltration (OR 5.85, CI95% 1.45-23.56, p = 0.01). Conversely, proton pump inhibitor treatment before hospitalization was significantly associated with decreased risk of severe GIB (OR 0.25, IC95% 0.10-0.65, p < 0.01). Fifty-four patients (38%) died within 90 days. By multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with hemorrhagic shock (OR 2.91, IC95% 1.33-6.38, p = 0 .01), upper GIB (OR 4.33, CI95% 1.50-12.47, p = 0.01), and long-term corticosteroid therapy before admission (OR 2.98, CI95% 1.32-6.71, p = 0.01). Albuminemia (per 5 g/l increase) was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.54, IC95% 0.35-0.84, p = 0.01). After matching with a control group of non-immunocompromised patients, severity of bleeding was increased in immunocompromised patients, but mortality was not different between the 2 groups.ConclusionMortality is high in immunocompromised patients with GIB in ICU, especially in patients receiving long term corticosteroids. Mortality of GIB is not different from mortality of non-immunocompromised patients in ICU. The prophylactic administration of proton pump inhibitors should be considered in this population.

Project description:Background and aimsOver 404 million people worldwide have been infected with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), 145 million in the United States (77 million) and Europe (151 million) alone (as of February 10, 2022). This paper aims to analyze data from studies reporting gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and/or endoscopic findings in COVID-19 patients in Western countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles on confirmed COVID-19 cases with GIB in Western countries published in PubMed and Google Scholar databases from June 20, 2020, to July 10, 2021.ResultsA total of 12 studies reporting GIB and/or endoscopic findings in 808 COVID-19 patients in Western countries were collected and analyzed. Outcomes and comorbidities were compared with 18,179 non-GIB COVID-19 patients from Italy and the United States. As per our study findings, the overall incidence of GIB in COVID-19 patients was found to be 0.06%. When compared to the non-GIB cohort, the death rate was significantly high in COVID-19 patients with GIB (16.4% vs 25.4%, P < .001, respectively). Endoscopic treatment was rarely necessary, and blood transfusion was the most common GIB treatment. The most common presentation in GIB patients is melena (n = 117, 47.5%). Peptic, esophageal, and rectal ulcers were the most common endoscopic findings in upper (48.4%) and lower (36.4%) endoscopies. The GIB cohort had worse outcomes and higher incidence of hypertension (61.1%), liver disease (11.2%), and cancer (13.6%) than the non-GIB cohort. Death was strongly associated with hypertension (P < .001, r = 0.814), hematochezia (P < .001, r = 0.646), and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (P < .001, r = 0.591) in COVID-19 patients with GIB.ConclusionsOverall, the incidence of GIB in COVID-19 patients is similar to that estimated in the overall population, with melena being the most common presentation. The common endoscopic findings in GIB COVID-19 patients were ulcers, esophagitis, gastritis, and colitis. Patients with GIB were more prone to death than non-GIB COVID-19 patients.

Project description:Objective: Bleeding can be a severe complication of critical illness, but its true epidemiologic impact on children has seldom been studied. Our objective is to describe the epidemiology of bleeding in critically ill children, using a validated clinical tool, as well as the hemostatic interventions and clinical outcomes associated with bleeding. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: Tertiary pediatric critical care unit Patients: All consecutive patients (1 month to 18 years of age) admitted to a tertiary pediatric critical care unit Measurements and Main Results: Bleeding events were categorized as minimal, moderate, severe, or fatal, according to the Bleeding Assessment Scale in Critically Ill Children. We collected demographics and severity at admission, as evaluated by the Pediatric Index of Mortality. We used regression models to compare the severity of bleeding with outcomes adjusting for age, surgery, and severity. Over 12 months, 902 critically ill patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 months (IQR 17; 159), the median admission predicted risk of mortality was 0.5% (IQR 0.2; 1.4), and 24% were post-surgical. Eighteen percent of patients experienced at least one bleeding event. The highest severity of bleeding was minimal for 7.9% of patients, moderate for 5.8%, severe for 3.8%, and fatal for 0.1%. Adjusting for age, severity at admission, medical diagnosis, type of surgery, and duration of surgery, bleeding severity was independently associated with fewer ventilator-free days (p < 0.001) and fewer PICU-free days (p < 0.001). Adjusting for the same variables, bleeding severity was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio for each bleeding category 2.4, 95% CI 1.5; 3.7, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our data indicate bleeding occurs in nearly one-fifth of all critically ill children, and that higher severity of bleeding was independently associated with worse clinical outcome. Further multicenter studies are required to better understand the impact of bleeding in critically ill children.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether there exist certain subsets of patients outside of the intensive care unit in whom the risk of nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding is high enough that prophylactic use of acid-suppressive medication may be warranted.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors for nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding in a cohort of non-critically ill hospitalized patients, develop a risk scoring system, and use this system to identify patients most likely to benefit from acid suppression.DesignCohort study.PatientsAdult patients admitted to an academic medical center from 2004 through 2007. Admissions with a principal diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleeding or a principal procedure code for cardiac catheterization were excluded.Main measuresMedication, laboratory, and other clinical data were obtained through electronic data repositories maintained at the medical center. The main outcome measure-nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding occurring outside of the intensive care unit-was ascertained via ICD-9-CM coding and confirmed by chart review.Key resultsOf 75,723 admissions (median age = 56 years; 40 % men), nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 203 (0.27 %). Independent risk factors for bleeding included age > 60 years, male sex, liver disease, acute renal failure, sepsis, being on a medicine service, prophylactic anticoagulants, and coagulopathy. Risk of bleeding increased as clinical risk score derived from these factors increased. Acid-suppressive medication was utilized in > 50 % of patients in each risk stratum. Our risk scoring system identified a high risk group in whom the number-needed-to-treat with acid-suppressive medication to prevent one bleeding event was < 100.ConclusionsIn this large cohort of non-critically ill hospitalized patients, we identified several independent risk factors for nosocomial gastrointestinal bleeding. With further validation at other medical centers, the risk model derived from these factors may help clinicians to direct acid-suppressive medication to those most likely to benefit.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.ResultsSeventy two trials including 12?660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).ConclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Dataset Information

Gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings in critically and non-critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) and COKA registries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings in critically and non-critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) and COKA registries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets