Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=28507747
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
The clinical and cost implications of failed endoscopic hemostasis in
gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding
#MMPMID28507747
Roy A
; Kim M
; Hawes R
; Varadarajulu S
United European Gastroenterol J
2017[Apr]; 5
(3
): 359-364
PMID28507747
show ga
AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the clinical and cost implications of
failed endoscopic hemostasis in patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding.
METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and
Review (MedPAR) file was conducted to identify all hospitalizations for
gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding in the year 2012. The main outcome measures were to
compare all-cause mortality, total length of hospital stay (LOS), hospital costs
and payment between patients managed with one upper gastrointestinal (UGI)
endoscopy versus more than one UGI endoscopy or requiring interventional
radiology-guided hemostasis (IRH) or surgery after failed endoscopic attempt.
RESULTS: The MedPAR claims data evaluated 13,501 hospitalizations, of which
12,242 (90.6%) reported one UGI endoscopy, 817 (6.05%) reported >1 UGI endoscopy,
303 (2.24%) reported IRH after failed endoscopy and 139 (1.03%) reported
surgeries after failed endoscopy. All cause-mortality was significantly lower for
patients who underwent only one UGI endoscopy (3%) compared to patients requiring
>1 endoscopy (6%), IRH (9%) or surgery (14%), p?0.0001. The median LOS was
significantly lower for patients who underwent only one UGI endoscopy (four days)
compared to patients requiring >1 endoscopy (eight days), IRH (nine days) or
surgery (15 days), p?0.0001. The median hospital costs were significantly lower
for patients who underwent one UGI endoscopy ($10,518) compared to patients
requiring >1 endoscopy ($20,055), IRH ($34,730) or surgery ($47,589), p?0.0001.
CONCLUSIONS: Failure to achieve hemostasis at the index endoscopy has significant
clinical and cost implications. When feasible, a repeat endoscopy must be
attempted followed by IRH. Surgery should preferably be reserved as a last resort
for patients who fail other treatment measures.