Reduced survival after upper gastrointestinal bleed endoscopy in the COVID-19 era is a secondary effect of the response to the global pandemic: a retrospective cohort study
Open Access
- 7 October 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Frontline Gastroenterology
- Vol. 12 (4) , 279-287
Abstract
Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on healthcare systems worldwide with enormous reorganisation undertaken to support ‘COVID-centric’ services. Non-COVID-19 admissions reduced secondary to public health measures to halt viral transmission. We aimed to understand the impact of the response to COVID-19 on the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeds. Design/methods A retrospective observational multicentre study comparing outcomes following endoscopy for UGI bleeds from 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020 to the corresponding dates in 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival at 30 days with secondary outcomes of major rebleeding within 30 days postprocedure and intervention at the time of endoscopy. Results 224 endoscopies for 203 patients with UGI bleeds were included within this study. 19 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. There was a 44.4% reduction in the number of procedures performed between 2019 and 2020. Endoscopies performed for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era were associated with an adjusted reduced 30-day survival (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.67). There was no increased risk of major rebleeding or interventions during this era. Patients with COVID-19 did not have reduced survival or increased complication rates. Conclusion Endoscopy for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era is associated with reduced survival. No clear cause has been identified but we suspect that this is a secondary effect of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Urgent work is required to encourage the public to seek medical help if required and to optimise patient pathways to ensure that the best possible care is provided.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational studyThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2020
- AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleedingBMC Gastroenterology, 2019
- Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective studyBMJ, 2017
- Comorbidities Affect Risk of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal BleedingGastroenterology, 2013
- Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK auditGut, 2011
- A prospective, randomized trial of large- versus small-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine for peptic ulcer bleedingGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2002
- Relevance of the Rockall score in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer haemorrhageEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2001
- A risk score to predict need for treatment for uppergastrointestinal haemorrhageThe Lancet, 2000
- Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with hypertonic saline–epinephrine injection and a combination of the two for the management of bleeding peptic ulcersGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1999
- Risk Factors for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill PatientsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994