Upper versus lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A direct comparison of clinical presentation, outcomes, and resource utilization

Chad T. Whelan, Connie Chen, Peter Kaboli, Juned Siddique, Micah Prochaska, David O. Meltzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Scopus citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare prevalence, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization between subjects with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: Using administrative data, patient surveys, and chart abstraction, comparisons between subjects admitted with LGIB and UGIB were made by employing bivariate and multivariate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 367 subjects were identified, LGIB = 187 and UGIB = 180. Subjects with UGIB compared to LGIB had greater admission hemodynamic instability including tachycardia and orthostasis but clinical outcomes were similar. In multivariate analyses, no significant differences were observed for in-hospital mortality transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) or 30-day readmission rate. Resource utilization was similar in UGIB and LGIB, including mean costs, length of stay, and number of endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike prior studies, this direct comparison of LGIB to UGIB identified more similarities than differences with similar prevalence rates, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization, suggesting that the epidemiology of gastrointestinal bleeding may be changing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)141-147
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of hospital medicine
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2010

Keywords

  • Cost effectiveness
  • Endoscopy
  • Epidemiology
  • Gastrointestinal hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Internal Medicine
  • Fundamentals and skills
  • Health Policy
  • Care Planning
  • Assessment and Diagnosis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Upper versus lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A direct comparison of clinical presentation, outcomes, and resource utilization'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this