The aspirin cardiovascular/gastrointestinal risk calculator--a tool to aid clinicians in practice.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of both GI and CV risks vs. the benefits of low-dose aspirin for individual patients can be difficult in clinical practice. AIM: To develop a tool to estimate CV and GI risks to facilitate the clinical decision-making process. METHODS: We constructed risk-ratio estimations and determined the incidence of CV events and upper GI complications according to the presence of different risk factors. For upper GI complications we assumed a baseline incidence of 1 case/1000-persons-year, a twofold increased risk with low-dose aspirin, and estimated a 60% GI risk reduction with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) co-therapy and a 60% risk reduction with H. pylori eradication in patients with a history of peptic ulcer. RESULTS: The calculator can be found at http://www.asariskcalculator.com. In patients with low CV risk the number of GI complications induced by low-dose aspirin may be greater than the number of CV events prevented. In patients with high CV risk, low-dose aspirin is recommended, but the number of GI complications induced may still overcome the CV events saved. The use of PPI reduces the number of complication events induced by low-dose aspirin, but the number of CV events saved may still be offset by the number of GI complications induced in patients at very high GI risk. CONCLUSIONS: There are many clinical situations where the number of potential upper GI complications induced by low-dose aspirin may exceed the number of potentially prevented CV events. A risk calculator should guide physicians in choosing appropriate therapy and maximise the aspirin benefit.

The changing face of hospitalisation due to gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation.

BACKGROUND: Temporal changes in the incidence of cause-specific gastrointestinal (GI) complications may be one of the factors underlying changing medical practice patterns. AIM: To report temporal changes in the incidence of five major causes of specific gastrointestinal (GI) complication events. METHODOLOGY: Population-based study of patients hospitalised due to GI bleeding and perforation from 1996 to 2005 in Spain. We report crude rates, and estimate regression coefficients of temporal trends, severity and recorded drug use for five frequent GI events. GI hospitalisation charts were validated by independent review of large random samples. RESULTS: The incidence per 100 000 person-years of hospitalisations due to upper GI ulcer bleeding and perforation decreased over time [from 54.6 and 3.9 in 1996 (R² = 0.944) to 25.8 and 2.9 in 2005 (R² = 0.410) respectively]. On the contrary, the incidence per 100 000 person-years of colonic diverticular and angiodysplasia bleeding increased over time [3.3 and 0.9 in 1996 (R² = 0.443) and 8.0 and 2.6 in 2005 (R² = 0.715) respectively]. A small increasing trend was observed for the incidence per 100 000 person-years of intestinal perforations (from 1.5 to 2.3 events). Based on data extracted from the validation process, recent recorded drug intake showed an increased frequency of anticoagulants with colonic diverticular and angiodysplasia bleeding, whereas NSAID and low-dose aspirin use were more prevalent in peptic ulcer bleeding and colonic diverticular bleeding respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From 1996 to 2005, hospitalisations due to peptic ulcer bleeding and perforation have decreased significantly, whereas the number of cases of colonic diverticular and angiodysplasia bleeding have increased.

Risk factors for advanced lesions undetected at prior colonoscopy: not always poor preparation.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Colonoscopy is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis of colonic lesions. However, adenoma miss rates in tandem colonoscopy studies vary from 2 % to 26 %. We aimed to investigate the rates of advanced neoplasia in patients with a prior normal colonoscopy in an outpatient endoscopy unit. METHODS: Review of reports for colonoscopies performed in our Endoscopy Unit from 2000 to 2005. Undetected lesions were defined as advanced adenoma or colorectal cancer (CRC) not reported in a colonoscopy performed in the previous 2 or 3 years, respectively. Patients with hereditary nonpolyposis CRC (HNPCC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) were excluded. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2005, 795 patients were diagnosed with at least one advanced adenoma and 386 with CRC. Among these, 107/795 patients (13.5 %) had advanced adenoma that had been undetected in a previous colonoscopy (39 % [53/135 lesions] in the right colon); 92/107 (86 %) had an undetected advanced adenoma ≥ 10 mm. Previously undetected CRCs were found in 27/386 patients (6.7 %), located in the left colon in 21/27 (78 %); in 7 the area had not been reached in the previous colonoscopy. Risk factors for undetected advanced adenoma were advanced age, male gender, the presence of another advanced adenoma at first colonoscopy, and history of advanced neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to detect advanced neoplasia is common in a community-based endoscopy facility. Previously undetected advanced lesions are more frequently found in the left colon and rectum. Risk factors for non-detection of advanced adenoma are similar to those for advanced neoplasia recurrence. Lowering non-detection rates is crucial for correct follow-up recommendations. Patients should be aware of rates of detection of advanced neoplasia after previous normal colonoscopic findings.

Underutilization of gastroprotection for at-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Spain compared with the United States.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the preferred agents for the prevention of aspirin-associated upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Data are limited to determine whether PPIs are being used to reduce UGIB risk. AIM: To evaluate the implementation of PPI treatment to reduce the GI risk in two cardiology centres from Europe and the United States. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out at the University of Michigan and University Hospital-Zaragoza in 429 consecutive patients hospitalized for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on dual antiplatelet therapy. RESULTS: Admission for PPI co-therapy was similar (34% vs. 30%) in both centres. At discharge, the proportion of high-risk patients receiving PPI therapy in the Spanish centre (75.4%) was higher than their American peers (55.6%) (OR: 2.5; 95% CI; 1.3-4.7). No differences in PPI prescription rates were found among Spanish patients with/without GI risk factors. The opportunity to initiate PPI co-therapy in high-risk patients was missed in 81.8% (36/44) of those not on PPI at admission in US patients vs. 24.1% (19/79) (P < 0.0001) in Spanish patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences concerning PPI prescription and risk stratification in the two centres when managing PCI patients. Efforts to stratify risks and utilize appropriate strategies for UGIB prophylaxis in high-risk patients are warranted.