加载中

    Full and Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score in Predicting the Outcome of Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Shahrami Ali,Ahmadi Saba,Safari Saeed Emergency (Tehran, Iran) Introduction:Screening of high risk patients and accelerating their treatment measures can reduce the burden of the disease caused by acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study aimed to compare the full and modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS and mGBS) in prediction of in-hospital outcomes of upper GI bleeding. Methods:In the present retrospective cross-sectional study, the accuracy of GBS and mGBS models were compared in predicting the outcome of patients over 18 years of age with acute upper GI bleeding confirmed via endoscopy, presenting to the emergency departments of 3 teaching hospitals during 4 years. Results:330 cases with the mean age of 59.07 ± 19.00 years entered the study (63.60% male). Area under the curve of GBS and mGBS scoring systems were 0.691 and 0.703, respectively, in prediction of re-bleeding (p = 0.219), 0.562 and 0.563 regarding need for surgery (p = 0.978), 0.549 and 0.542 for endoscopic intervention (p = 0.505), and 0.767 and 0.770 regarding blood transfusion (p = 0.753). Area under the ROC curve of GBS scoring system regarding need for hospitalization in intensive care unit (0.589 vs. 0.563; p = 0.035) and mortality (0.597 vs. 0.564; p = 0.011) was better but the superiority was not clinically significant. Conclusion:GBS and mGBS scoring systems have similar accuracy in prediction of the probability of re-bleeding, need for blood transfusion, surgery and endoscopic intervention, hospitalization in intensive care unit, and mortality of patients with acute upper GI bleeding.
    Clinical utility of pre-endoscopy risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Tham Jennifer,Stanley Adrian Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology : Acute upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, with an incidence of 103-172 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom (UK) and mortality of 2% to 10%. Early and accurate prediction of the severity of an AUGIB episode may help guide management, including in or outpatient management, level of care required, and timing of endoscopy. This article aims to address the clinical utility of the various pre-endoscopic risk assessment tools used in AUGIB.: The authors undertook a literature review of the current evidence on the pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores. Additional the authors discuss the recently published novel risk assessment scores.: The evidence shows that GBS is the most clinically useful risk assessment score in correctly identifying very low-risk patients suitable for outpatient management. At present, research is ongoing to assess machine learning in the assessment of patients presenting with AUGIB. More research is needed but it shows promise for the future. 10.1080/17474124.2019.1698292
    The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding. Hyett Brian H,Abougergi Marwan S,Charpentier Joseph P,Kumar Navin L,Brozovic Suzana,Claggett Brian L,Travis Anne C,Saltzman John R Gastrointestinal endoscopy INTRODUCTION:We previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB). OBJECTIVE:To validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS). DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS:Adults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PRIMARY OUTCOME:inpatient mortality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES:composite clinical endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention; blood transfusion; intensive care unit admission; rebleeding; length of stay; timing of endoscopy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score. RESULTS:Of the 278 study patients, 6.5% died and 35% experienced the composite clinical endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient mortality (AUROC, 0.93 vs 0.68; P < .001), whereas the GBRS was superior in predicting blood transfusions (AUROC, 0.85 vs 0.65; P < .01) The 2 scores were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint (AUROC, 0.62 vs 0.68; P = .13) as well as the secondary outcomes. A GBRS of 10 and 12 or more maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for inpatient mortality and rebleeding, respectively. The cutoff was 2 or more for the AIMS65 score for both outcomes. LIMITATIONS:Retrospective, single-center study. CONCLUSION:The AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS in predicting inpatient mortality from UGIB, whereas the GBRS is superior for predicting blood transfusion. Both scores are similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint and other outcomes in clinical care and resource use. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.11.022
    Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly people: Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors. González-González José A,Monreal-Robles Roberto,García-Compean Diego,Paz-Delgadillo Jonathan,Wah-Suárez Martín,Maldonado-Garza Héctor J Journal of digestive diseases OBJECTIVE:To analyze the clinical characteristics, outcomes and prognostic factors in elderly patients (aged 75 years and elder) with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS:Consecutive patients admitted with acute nonvariceal UGIB who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were prospectively recruited and subdivided into two age-based groups, elderly (aged ≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years). The patients' characteristics and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS:Altogether 1136 patients were included in the study, 276 (24.3%) aged ≥75 years. Peptic ulcers, gastroduodenal erosions and esophagitis represented the three most common endoscopic lesions found in 87.7% of the elderly patients compared with 80.8% in younger patients ( P  = 0.008). Overall, the rebleeding rate (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.568), need for blood transfusion (66.3% vs 61.0%, P = 0.122), surgery rate (1.2% vs 1.4%, P = 0.947) and in-hospital mortality (13.0% vs 10.0%, P = 0.157) were not different between the two groups. In elderly patients, serum albumin was the only predictive variable independently associated with mortality in the overall analysis (OR 5.867, 95% CI 2.206-15.604, P < 0.001) and in the subgroup patients with peptic ulcers (OR 5.230, 95% CI 2.099-13.029, P = 0.001). Elderly patients with serum albumin >23.5 g/L at admission presented a low mortality (negative predictive value 97.3%). CONCLUSIONS:Clinical evolution and mortality do not differ between the elderly and younger patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB. Serum albumin level at admission is a prognostic marker for mortality in elder patients. 10.1111/1751-2980.12459
    Timing of upper endoscopy influences outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. Kumar Navin L,Cohen Aaron J,Nayor Jennifer,Claggett Brian L,Saltzman John R Gastrointestinal endoscopy BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Current guidelines advise that upper endoscopy be performed within 24 hours of presentation in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (UGIB). However, the role of urgent endoscopy (<12 hours) is controversial. Our aim was to assess whether patients admitted with acute nonvariceal UGIB with lower-risk versus high-risk bleeding have different outcomes with urgent compared with nonurgent endoscopy. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients admitted to an academic hospital with nonvariceal UGIB. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for surgical or interventional radiologic intervention, or endoscopic reintervention. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) was calculated; lower risk was defined as a GBS < 12, and high risk was defined as a GBS ≥ 12. RESULTS:Of 361 patients, 37 patients (10%) experienced the primary outcome. Patients who underwent urgent endoscopy had a greater than 5-fold increased risk of reaching the composite outcome (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-11.4; P < .001). Lower-risk patients who were taken urgently to endoscopy were more likely to reach the composite outcome (adjusted OR, 0.71 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .008). However, in the high-risk patients, time to endoscopy was not a significant predictor of the primary outcome (adjusted OR, 0.93 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .47; adjusted P for interaction = .039). CONCLUSION:Urgent endoscopy is a predictor of worse outcomes in select patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.029
    Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group. Barkun Alan N,Almadi Majid,Kuipers Ernst J,Laine Loren,Sung Joseph,Tse Frances,Leontiadis Grigorios I,Abraham Neena S,Calvet Xavier,Chan Francis K L,Douketis James,Enns Robert,Gralnek Ian M,Jairath Vipul,Jensen Dennis,Lau James,Lip Gregory Y H,Loffroy Romaric,Maluf-Filho Fauze,Meltzer Andrew C,Reddy Nageshwar,Saltzman John R,Marshall John K,Bardou Marc Annals of internal medicine Description:This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations. Methods:An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional. Recommendations:Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis. 10.7326/M19-1795
    The role of metallic clips in transcatheter intravascular embolization for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases receiving unmanageable endoscopic therapy: A retrospective cohort study. Wang Yang,Jia Peng International journal of surgery (London, England) INTRODUCTION:This study aims to explore whether metallic clips could be a kind of localizer and guider in transcatheter arterial embolization for patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, who received an unmanageable endoscopic therapy. METHODS:A total of 18 patients with non-variceal hemorrhage of the upper gastrointestinal tract, who received an unmanageable endoscopic therapy at *** Hospital of **** Province from July 2010 to December 2016, were included into this study. One or two metallic clips were placed on the margin of the bleeding point to be a mark during the endoscopic therapy. Then, all patients were immediately transferred to have an emergent upper gastrointestinal angiography. Bleeding vessels were embolized when found according to the guidance of the metallic clips. After the procedure, any changes of the patient's condition were closely observed and recorded. RESULTS:The average transcatheter arterial embolization therapy time was 31 min, 17 patients immediately had a successful result, and the success rate of the arterial embolization therapy was 94.44%. However, the bleeding could not be stopped in one patient. This patient was transferred and underwent a surgical operation to stop the bleeding. CONCLUSION:Metallic clips could play an important role in accurately locating the bleeding vessel during the trans catheter arterial embolization therapy. Furthermore, it could also improve the success rate of stopping the bleeding during intravascular embolization therapy, and shorten the time of intravascular embolization therapy. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.08.006
    First-line endoscopic treatment with OTSC in patients with high-risk non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: preliminary experience in 40 cases. Manno Mauro,Mangiafico Santi,Caruso Angelo,Barbera Carmelo,Bertani Helga,Mirante Vincenzo G,Pigò Flavia,Amardeep Khanna,Conigliaro Rita Surgical endoscopy BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS:The over-the-scope clip (OTSC; Ovesco, Tübingen, Germany) is a novel endoscopic clipping device designed for tissue approximation. The device has been used in the closure of fistulas and perforations. We hereby report a series of patients with high-risk non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) lesions in whom OTSCs were used as first-line endoscopic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed data over a period of 12 months from October 2013 to November 2014 from all consecutive patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for acute severe high-risk NVUGIB and were treated with OTSC as primary first-line therapy. RESULTS:We included forty consecutive patients with mean age 69 years (range 25-94 years). All patients were treated with the non-traumatic version of the OTSC system (23 with the 11 mm version and 17 with the 12 mm version). Indications for OTSC treatment included gastric ulcer with large vessel (Forrest IIa) (n = 8, 20 %), duodenal ulcer (Forrest Ib) (n = 7, 18 %), duodenal ulcer with large vessel (Forrest IIa) (n = 6, 15 %), Dieulafoy's lesion (n = 6, 15 %) and other secondary indications (n = 13, 32 %). Technical success and primary haemostasis were achieved in all patients (100 %). No re-bleeding, need for surgical or radiological embolization treatment or other complications were observed during the follow-up period of 30 days. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude OTSC placement as a first-line endoscopic treatment seems to be effective, safe and easy to perform and should be considered in patients with high-risk NVUGIB lesions. 10.1007/s00464-015-4436-y
    Peptic Ulcer Is the Most Common Cause of Non-Variceal Upper-Gastrointestinal Bleeding (NVUGIB) in China. Lu Mingliang,Sun Gang,Zhang Xiao-Mei,Xv You-Qing,Chen Shi-Yao,Song Ying,Li Xue-Liang,Lv Bin,Ren Jian-Lin,Chen Xue-Qing,Zhang Hui,Mo Chen,Wang Yan-Zhi,Yang Yun-Sheng Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research BACKGROUND This study aimed to discover the common cause of non-variceal upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) by conducting a multi-center retrospective study from 2008 to 2012. MATERIAL AND METHODS Hospitalized patients ages ≥18 years old, from 8 hospitals in China, diagnosed with NVUGIB by endoscopy from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012 were enrolled. Questionnaires were developed and a data-entry graphical user interface was designed by using EpiData software. RESULTS Total of 2977 hospitalized patients from 8 medical centers were included. A total of 95.47% (2842/2977) of patients were admitted to a general ward, 3.53% (105/2977) were admitted to an emergency ward, and 1.00% (31/2977) were admitted to an intensive care unit. Peptic ulcer remained the most common cause of NVUGIB (73.26%), but there was a declining trend in its constituent ratio, from 2008 to 2012. A total of 14.41% (429/2977) of patients had co-morbid conditions, 92.85% (2764/2977) used proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) prior to endoscopic treatment, 19.65% (585/2977) underwent emergency endoscopy, and 23.45% (698/2977) received a transfusion of red blood cell suspensions. A total of 5.34% (159/2977) underwent endoscopic therapy, with a treatment rate of 16.9% in high-risk peptic ulcer patients (96/568). A total of 7.69% (237/2977) were administered aspirin, of whom 32.50% (77/237) resumed aspirin intake after gastrointestinal bleeding was controlled. The median length of hospitalization was 8 days (IQR, 5-11) and the mortality rate was 1.71% (51/2977). CONCLUSIONS Peptic ulcer was still the most common cause of NVUGIB in China. The proportion of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding who received endoscopic therapy was 16.9%. Only 19.65% of NVUGIB patients underwent emergency endoscopy. 10.12659/MSM.909560
    Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Lanas Angel,Dumonceau Jean-Marc,Hunt Richard H,Fujishiro Mitsuhiro,Scheiman James M,Gralnek Ian M,Campbell Helen E,Rostom Alaa,Villanueva Càndid,Sung Joseph J Y Nature reviews. Disease primers Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is bleeding that develops in the oesophagus, stomach or proximal duodenum. Peptic ulcers, caused by Helicobacter pylori infection or use of NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin (LDA), are the most common cause. Although the incidence and mortality associated with NVUGIB have been decreasing owing to considerable advances in the prevention and management of NVUGIB over the past 20 years, it remains a common clinical problem with an annual incidence of ∼67 per 100,000 individuals in the United States in 2012. NVUGIB is a medical emergency, and mortality is in the range ∼1-5%. After resuscitation and initial assessment, early (within 24 hours) diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy together with intragastric pH control with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) form the basis of treatment. With a growing ageing population treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications, the clinical management of NVUGIB is complex as the risk between gastrointestinal bleeding events and adverse cardiovascular events needs to be balanced. The best clinical approach includes identification of risk factors and prevention of bleeding; available strategies include continuous treatment with PPIs or H. pylori eradication in those at increased risk of developing NVUGIB. Treatment with PPIs and/or use of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs should be implemented in those patients at risk of NVUGIB who need NSAIDs and/or LDA. 10.1038/nrdp.2018.20
    [Glasgow-Blatchford usefulness in patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding with low and high risk of complications seen at the Emergency Department of Santo Tomas Hospital, 2015-2016]. Duarte-Chang Calixto,Beitia Susan,Adames Enrique Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru INTRODUCTION:The Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) scale allows us to classify the patient as a high or low risk of presenting complications.In the patients identified as "low risk", the performance of an early endoscopy could reduce the intrahospital days and the overall cost. In our environment, we do not know the usefulness of the GBS scale. OBJECTIVE:To describe the utility of the Glasgow-Blatchford scale (GBS) in the stratification of risk in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (HDA) seen in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS:218 patients were prospectively included, and they were performed in the first 24-48 hr an urgent endoscopy. These were stratified, according to the GBS scale, at low risk (GBS ≤ 2), and high risk (GBS ≥ 3). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the GBS scale in our setting based on the requirement of endoscopic, radiological treatment (arterial embolization), transfusion of blood products and / or surgery, as our gold standar to classify patients as "high risk". RESULTS:A total of 218 patients were included, with a mean age of 56 ± 18 years, of which 121/218 (55%) were male. 156/218 required intervention for what were classified as "high risk" while 62/218 did not specify and classified as "low risk". A cut-off value of GBS ≤ 2 showed a sensitivity of 98% with a NPV of 100%. The utility of the GBS scale showed an area under the ROC curve 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.90). CONCLUSION:The GBS scale used in patients with non-variceal UGB attended in the emergency department has adequate diagnostic validity to predict the need for intervention.
    AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review. Mullady Daniel K,Wang Andrew Y,Waschke Kevin A Gastroenterology DESCRIPTION:The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS:This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged. 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.095
    Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage: controversies and areas of uncertainty. Trawick Eric P,Yachimski Patrick S World journal of gastroenterology Upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage (UGIH) remains a common presentation requiring urgent evaluation and treatment. Accurate assessment, appropriate intervention and apt clinical skills are needed for proper management from time of presentation to discharge. The advent of pharmacologic acid suppression, endoscopic hemostatic techniques, and recognition of Helicobacter pylori as an etiologic agent in peptic ulcer disease (PUD) has revolutionized the treatment of UGIH. Despite this, acute UGIH still carries considerable rates of morbidity and mortality. This review aims to discuss current areas of uncertainty and controversy in the management of UGIH. Neoadjuvant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has become standard empiric treatment for UGIH given that PUD is the leading cause of non-variceal UGIH, and PPIs are extremely effective at promoting ulcer healing. However, neoadjuvant PPI administration has not been shown to affect hard clinical outcomes such as rebleeding or mortality. The optimal timing of upper endoscopy in UGIH is often debated. Upon completion of volume resuscitation and hemodynamic stabilization, upper endoscopy should be performed within 24 h in all patients with evidence of UGIH for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. With rising healthcare cost paramount in today's medical landscape, the ability to appropriately triage UGIH patients is of increasing value. Upper endoscopy in conjunction with the clinical scenario allows for accurate decision making concerning early discharge home in low-risk lesions or admission for further monitoring and treatment in higher-risk lesions. Concomitant pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, has a major impact on the etiology, severity, and potential treatment of UGIH. Long-term PPI use in patients taking chronic NSAIDs or clopidogrel is discussed thoroughly in this review. 10.3748/wjg.v18.11.1159