Endoscopy 2025; 57(S 02): S161-S162
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1805411
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2025
Oral presentation
Upper GI endoscopy – A Deep Dive 05/04/2025, 10:30 – 11:30 Room 124+125

Predictors and Outcomes of Massive Bleeding in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Insights from a multicentre prospective UK cohort study

G Nigam
1   John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
J Grant-Casey
2   National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
E Ratcliffe
3   Wrightington, Wigan ' Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Appley Bridge, United Kingdom
,
R Uberoi
1   John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
K Oakland
4   HCA Healthcare UK at The Shard, London, United Kingdom
,
S Hearnshaw
5   Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
,
S Travis
6   Kennedy Institute – University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
A Stanley
7   Glasgow Royal Infirmary,, GLASGOW, United Kingdom
,
A Douds
9   Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
 

Aims Massive bleeding in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is linked to significant morbidity and mortality. This study characterised patients with massive bleeding, identified predictors, and evaluated outcomes, including mortality and rebleeding.

Methods Data from the 2022 UK AUGIB audit [1], including 4,339 patients undergoing endoscopy, were analysed. Massive bleeding was defined as haemodynamic instability and transfusion of>2 packed red cells within 24 hours of presentation. Patient characteristics, management, and outcomes were compared using univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of massive bleeding, mortality, and rebleeding.

Results Among 4,339 patients, 598 (14%) had massive bleeding. These patients were younger (median 68 vs. 69 years, p=0.03), predominantly male (65% vs. 59%, p=0.01), and had worse haemodynamic and laboratory parameters, including lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) (99 vs. 124 mmHg, p<0.001), higher heart rate (105 vs. 89 bpm, p<0.001), lower haemoglobin (69 vs. 98 g/L, p<0.001), and higher lactate (2.80 vs. 1.80 mmol/L, p<0.001). Hepatic disease (29% vs. 18%, p<0.001), varices (25% vs. 13%, p<0.001), and higher Glasgow-Blatchford Scores (13 vs. 8, p<0.001) were more common. Massive bleeding patients had more endoscopic stigmata of bleeding (48% vs. 28%, p<0.001) and required more interventions, including therapeutic endoscopy (43% vs. 25%, p<0.001), interventional radiology (5.0% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001), and surgery (2.4% vs. 0.5%, p<0.001). Massive bleeding was associated with higher mortality (12% vs. 6.8%, p<0.001), rebleeding (18% vs. 9.8%, p<0.001), and longer hospital stays (7 vs. 5 days, p<0.001). Predictors of mortality included inpatient status (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.91–5.49), hepatic disease (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.10–4.30), renal disease (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24–3.94), and the need for IR (OR 4.52, 95% CI 2.05–9.53). Higher SBP at presentation (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–0.99) and presentation with melaena (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38–0.98) were associated with lower mortality. Predictors of rebleeding included inpatient status (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.25–3.73), pre-endoscopy vasopressor use (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.33–5.48), and endoscopic stigmata of bleeding (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.28–3.89). Higher haemoglobin (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98–0.99) and melaena (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41–0.99) were associated with reduced rebleeding

Conclusions Massive bleeding patients experience worse outcomes, including higher mortality, rebleeding, and longer hospitalisation. Predictors such as low SBP, high heart rate, low haemoglobin, and endoscopic stigmata of bleeding can guide early identification of high-risk patients. Addressing comorbidities and prompt resuscitation are key to improving outcomes.



Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2025

© 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany