TY - JOUR
T1 - Urgent vs. elective endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper-GI bleeding
T2 - An effectiveness study
AU - Bjorkman, David J.
AU - Zaman, Atif
AU - Fennerty, M (Brian)
AU - Lieberman, David
AU - DiSario, James A.
AU - Guest-Warnick, Ginger
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by grants from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Digestive Health Foundation.
PY - 2004/7
Y1 - 2004/7
N2 - Background Urgent endoscopy in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding identifies many patients who may be safely treated without hospitalization. The aim of this multicenter trial was to determine whether urgent endoscopy effectively decreases health care resource utilization in a real-life setting where primary care providers determine the course of care. Methods Ninety-three outpatients with acute upper-GI bleeding were randomized to either urgent endoscopy (before hospitalization) or elective endoscopy after admission. The results of urgent endoscopy and a recommendation regarding patient disposition were provided to the attending physician. Medical outcomes and resource utilization were measured. Results The timing of endoscopy did not affect resource utilization or patient outcomes. Length of stay was similar (urgent endoscopy, OR 3.98 days: 95% CI[2.84, 5.11] vs. elective endoscopy, OR 3.26 days: 95% CI[2.32, 4.21], p=0.45). The mean number of days in an intensive care unit was the same (1.2 days). The urgent endoscopy group had more high-risk endoscopic lesions (15 vs. 9; p=0.031). Outpatient care was recommended for 19 patients (40%). Only 4 patients were discharged. Conclusions Urgent endoscopy did not reduce hospitalization or resource utilization because the results of early endoscopy did not impact the decision by attending physicians regarding admission. For early (triage) endoscopy to impact resource utilization, the results of endoscopy must change subsequent patient care.
AB - Background Urgent endoscopy in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding identifies many patients who may be safely treated without hospitalization. The aim of this multicenter trial was to determine whether urgent endoscopy effectively decreases health care resource utilization in a real-life setting where primary care providers determine the course of care. Methods Ninety-three outpatients with acute upper-GI bleeding were randomized to either urgent endoscopy (before hospitalization) or elective endoscopy after admission. The results of urgent endoscopy and a recommendation regarding patient disposition were provided to the attending physician. Medical outcomes and resource utilization were measured. Results The timing of endoscopy did not affect resource utilization or patient outcomes. Length of stay was similar (urgent endoscopy, OR 3.98 days: 95% CI[2.84, 5.11] vs. elective endoscopy, OR 3.26 days: 95% CI[2.32, 4.21], p=0.45). The mean number of days in an intensive care unit was the same (1.2 days). The urgent endoscopy group had more high-risk endoscopic lesions (15 vs. 9; p=0.031). Outpatient care was recommended for 19 patients (40%). Only 4 patients were discharged. Conclusions Urgent endoscopy did not reduce hospitalization or resource utilization because the results of early endoscopy did not impact the decision by attending physicians regarding admission. For early (triage) endoscopy to impact resource utilization, the results of endoscopy must change subsequent patient care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3042680282&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3042680282&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)01287-8
DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)01287-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 15229417
AN - SCOPUS:3042680282
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 60
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -