Vómitos en posos de café y valoración endoscópica precoz. ¿Es realmente el tiempo la clave? / Coffee ground emesis and early endoscopy: Is timing actually relevant?

Objetivo Los vómitos en posos de café son un síntoma clásico de hemorragia digestiva alta. Sin embargo, tienen escasa validez semiológica, dado su conocido bajo valor predictivo positivo. Nuestro objetivo es determinar si realizar una gastroscopia urgente en estos pacientes modifica nuestra conducta terapéutica con impacto real en la morbimortalidad. Pacientes y métodos Se trata de un estudio retrospectivo, observacional y descriptivo en el que se analizaron aquellos pacientes que se realizaron una gastroscopia en nuestro centro por vómitos en posos de café en los últimos 4 años (2017-2021). Se establecieron 2 grupos: endoscopia urgente (primeras 24h) y programada (más de 24h) y se evaluaron las diferencias entre ambos grupos en supervivencia, estancia en la UCI, días de ingreso hospitalario y tasa de resangrado. Resultados Se identificaron 314 pacientes, de los que finalmente se incluyeron 276, perteneciendo 176 al grupo de gastroscopia urgente y 109 al de diferida. No se identificaron diferencias en la tasa de ingreso en la UCI, días de estancia hospitalaria, supervivencia ni resangrado a los 30 días. Tampoco se objetivaron diferencias en la tasa de detección de lesiones potencialmente sangrantes ni en la necesidad de terapéutica endoscópica. Conclusiones Los vómitos en posos de café, sin otros datos clínicos de hemorragia digestiva, no son un indicador fiable de la misma, y la realización de una gastroscopia urgente no aporta beneficios en términos de morbimortalidad. Una estrategia conservadora en estos pacientes permitiría diferir endoscopias, evitando riesgos y ayudando al control de gastos sin incidir en el pronóstico del paciente. (AU)

Objective Coffee ground vomiting is a classical symptom of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the clinical usefulness is limited, due to the low positive predictive value. Our goal is to determine if whether an urgent endoscopy does modify our therapeutic management with a real impact on survival. Patients and methods It is a retrospective, observational and descriptive study. We selected all patients that underwent a gastroscopy in our center for coffee ground vomiting over the last 4 years (2017-2021). Two groups were established: urgent endoscopy (first 24h) and scheduled (over 24h). Then we studied differences between both groups regarding survival, ICU admission, hospitalization days and rebleeding. Results Three hundred and fourteen patients were identified, from which 276 were included, with 176 belonging to the urgency group and 109 to the scheduled group. There were no differences in the ICU admission, hospitalization days, survival or rebleeding after 30 days. There were no differences either in the number of potentially bleeding lesions or the need of endoscopic therapeutic. Conclusions Coffee ground vomiting, without any other data supporting upper gastrointestinal bleeding, does not represent a reliable indicator. Performing urgent endoscopy is not beneficial in terms of morbimortality. Therefore, a more conservative strategy would allow to differ endoscopy, decreasing risks and reducing costs, without affecting the prognosis. (AU)

Coffee ground emesis and early endoscopy: Is timing actually relevant? / Vómitos en posos de café y valoración endoscópica precoz. ¿Es realmente el tiempo la clave?

OBJECTIVE: Coffee ground vomiting is a classical symptom of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the clinical usefulness is limited, due to the low positive predictive value. Our goal is to determine if whether an urgent endoscopy does modify our therapeutic management with a real impact on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It is a retrospective, observational and descriptive study. We selected all patients that underwent a gastroscopy in our center for coffee ground vomiting over the last 4 years (2017-2021). Two groups were established: urgent endoscopy (first 24h) and scheduled (over 24h). Then we studied differences between both groups regarding survival, ICU admission, hospitalization days and rebleeding. RESULTS: Three hundred and fourteen patients were identified, from which 276 were included, with 176 belonging to the urgency group and 109 to the scheduled group. There were no differences in the ICU admission, hospitalization days, survival or rebleeding after 30 days. There were no differences either in the number of potentially bleeding lesions or the need of endoscopic therapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: Coffee ground vomiting, without any other data supporting upper gastrointestinal bleeding, does not represent a reliable indicator. Performing urgent endoscopy is not beneficial in terms of morbimortality. Therefore, a more conservative strategy would allow to differ endoscopy, decreasing risks and reducing costs, without affecting the prognosis.