Citations

Abstract Background and Aim Data are lacking on predicting inpatient mortality (IM) in patients admitted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IM is a critical outcome; however, difficulty in its prediction exists due to infrequent occurrence. We assessed IM predictors and developed a predictive model for IM using machine‐learning (ML). Methods Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2005–2017), we extracted adults admitted for IBD. After ML‐guided predictor selection, we trained and internally validated multiple algorithms, targeting minimum sensitivity and positive likelihood ratio (+LR) ≥ 80% and ≥ 3, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) compared algorithm performance. The best performing algorithm was additionally trained and validated for an IBD‐related surgery sub‐cohort. External validation was done using NIS 2018. Results In 398 426 adult IBD admissions, IM was 0.32% overall, and 0.87% among the surgical cohort ( n = 40 784). Increasing age, ulcerative colitis, IBD‐related surgery, pneumonia, chronic lung disease, acute kidney injury, malnutrition, frailty, heart failure, blood transfusion, sepsis/septic shock and thromboembolism were associated with increased IM. The QLattice algorithm, provided the highest performance model (+LR: 3.2, 95% CI 3.0–3.3; area‐under‐curve [AUC]:0.87, 85% sensitivity, 73% specificity), distinguishing IM patients by 15.6‐fold when comparing high to low‐risk patients. The surgical cohort model (+LR: 8.5, AUC: 0.94, 85% sensitivity, 90% specificity), distinguished IM patients by 49‐fold. Both models performed excellently in external validation. An online calculator ( https://clinicalc.ai/im‐ibd/ ) was developed allowing bedside model predictions. Conclusions An online prediction‐model calculator captured > 80% IM cases during IBD‐related admissions, with high discriminatory effectiveness. This allows for risk stratification and provides a basis for assessing interventions to reduce mortality in high‐risk patients.

Abstract Background and study aims Current guidelines conditionally recommend performing early colonoscopy (EC) (< 24 hours) in patients admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). It remains unclear whether this practice is implemented widely. Therefore, we used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to investigate trends for timing of colonoscopy in patients admitted with acute LGIB. We also assessed trend of hospitalization and mortality in patients with LGIB. Patients and methods Adult patients with LGIB admitted from 2005 to 2014 were examined. ICD-9-CM codes were used to extract LGIB discharges. Trends were assessed using Cochrane-Armitage test. Factors associated with mortality, cost of hospitalization, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed by multivariable mixed-effects and exact-matched logistic, linear regression, and accelerated-failure time models, respectively. Results A total of 814,647 patients with LGIB were included. The most common etiology of LGIB was diverticular bleeding (49 %) and 45 % of patients underwent EC. Over the study period, there was no change in the trend of colonoscopy timing. Although admission with LGIB increased over the study period, the mortality rate decreased for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Independent predictors of mortality were age, surgery (colostomy/colectomy) during admission, intensive care unit admission, acute kidney injury, and blood transfusion requirement. Timing of colonoscopy was not associated with mortality benefit. However, cost of hospitalization was $ 1,946 lower and LOS was 1.6 days shorter with EC. Conclusion Trends in colonoscopy timing in management of LGIB have not changed over the years. EC is associated with lower LOS and cost of hospitalization but it does not appear to improve inpatient mortality.

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.

The relative risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) among different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is debatable. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with each other are lacking. We performed network meta-analysis to assess whether the risk of major GIB differs based on type and dose of DOAC. Literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from inception to August 2019, limited to English publications, was conducted to identify RCTs comparing DOACs with warfarin or enoxaparin for any indication. Primary outcome of interest was major GIB risk. We used frequentist network meta-analysis through the random-effects model to compare DOACs with each other and DOACs by dose to isolate the impact on major GIB. Twenty-eight RCTs, including 139 587 patients receiving six anticoagulants, were selected. The risk of major GIB for DOACs was equal to warfarin. Comparison of DOACs with each other did not show risk differences. After accounting for dose, rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 300 mg and edoxaban 60 mg daily had 47, 40 and 22% higher rates of major GIB versus warfarin, respectively. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily had lower major GIB compared to dabigatran 300 mg (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88) and rivaroxaban 20 mg (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43–0.83) daily. Heterogeneity was low, and the model was consistent without publication bias (Egger’s test: P = 0.079). All RCTs were high-quality with low risk of bias. DOACs at standard dose, except apixaban, had a higher risk of major GIB compared to warfarin. Apixaban had a lower rate of major GIB compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Abstract Background and study aims Colonoscopy is an effective tool to prevent colorectal cancer. Social media has emerged as a source of medical information for patients.YouTube (a video sharing website) is the most popular video informative source. Therefore, we aimed to assess the educational quality of colonoscopy videos available on YouTube. Methods We performed a YouTube search using the keyword “colonoscopy” yielded 429 videos, of which 255 met the inclusion criteria. Colonoscopy Data Quality Score (C-DQS) was created to rate the quality of the videos (–10 to +40 points) based on a colonoscopy education video available on the Ameican Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) website. Each video was scored by six blinded reviewers independently using C-DQS. The Global Quality Score (GQS) was used for score validation. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the similarity of the scores among reviewers. Results Professional societies had the highest number of videos (44.3 %). Videos from professional societies (6.94) and media (6.87) had significantly higher mean C-DQS compared to those from alternative medicine providers (1.19), companies (1.16), and patients (2.60) (P < 0.05). Mean C-DQS score of videos from healthcare providers (4.40) was not statistically different than other sources. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers for the videos from all sources (ICC = 0.934; P < 0.001). Discussion YouTube videos are a poor source of information on colonoscopy. Professional societies and media are better sources of quality information for patient education on colonoscopy. The medical community may need to engage actively in enriching the quality of educational material available on YouTube.