Impact of time to esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Revista de Gastroenterología de México (English Edition) Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 320 - 329
• Main Authors: Bilder, H.G., Soccini, C., Lasa, J.S., Zubiaurre, I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 01.07.2022
• Subjects: Endoscopia; Hemorragia gastrointestinal; Mortalidad
• ISSN: 2255-534X; 2255-534X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2021.11.010

There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for reducing mortality and rebleeding, in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.INTRODUCTIONThere is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for reducing mortality and rebleeding, in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.To describe the decrease in the risk for mortality, rebleeding, and red blood cell transfusion, with the performance of urgent EGD, in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.AIMTo describe the decrease in the risk for mortality, rebleeding, and red blood cell transfusion, with the performance of urgent EGD, in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.We carried out a search for cohort studies or controlled clinical trials, published from December 1966 to May 2020, that compared urgent EGD versus elective EGD in the management of adults with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, utilizing the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Our primary outcome was the hospital mortality comparison. The incidence of rebleeding and the mean number of red blood cell units transfused were also compared. A random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSWe carried out a search for cohort studies or controlled clinical trials, published from December 1966 to May 2020, that compared urgent EGD versus elective EGD in the management of adults with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, utilizing the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Our primary outcome was the hospital mortality comparison. The incidence of rebleeding and the mean number of red blood cell units transfused were also compared. A random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis.Twenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included, involving 489,622 patients. We found no differences in the mortality of subjects exposed to urgent EGD versus elective EGD (RR 1.12 [0.72-1.72]). There was a significant increase in the risk for rebleeding (RR 1.30 [1.05-1.60]) in the subjects exposed to urgent EGD, and fewer red blood cell units were transfused in those patients (RR 0.52 [0.05-0.99]).RESULTSTwenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included, involving 489,622 patients. We found no differences in the mortality of subjects exposed to urgent EGD versus elective EGD (RR 1.12 [0.72-1.72]). There was a significant increase in the risk for rebleeding (RR 1.30 [1.05-1.60]) in the subjects exposed to urgent EGD, and fewer red blood cell units were transfused in those patients (RR 0.52 [0.05-0.99]).Urgent EGD in subjects with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding does not appear to have a significant impact on short-term mortality.CONCLUSIONSUrgent EGD in subjects with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding does not appear to have a significant impact on short-term mortality.