ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Effectiveness of endoscopy in patients with concomitant gastrointestinal bleeding and acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a critical complication often seen in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially those undergoing dual antiplatelet therapy. GIB is associated with increased mortality and prolonged hospitalization, particularly in ACS patients. Despite advancements in management strategies, the role of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) in this population remains controversial, with concerns about timing, safety, and clinical outcomes.
aimTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of GIE in patients with ACS and acute GIB, focusing on outcomes such as mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), hemorrhage control, rebleeding, and blood transfusion requirements.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE, up to December 2024. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42025630188). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.
resultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising one RCT and three cohort studies with a total population of 1676130 patients. Most studies indicated that GIE was associated with improved survival in ACS patients with GIB. Three of our studies reported lower mortality rates in patients undergoing GIE compared to those managed without endoscopy, although this varied by study. While GIE demonstrated effectiveness in controlling hemorrhage and reducing rebleeding rates in one study. The rest of the studies did not evaluate these outcomes comprehensively. Hospital LOS outcomes were inconsistent, with two studies suggesting no significant difference, while only one study indicated potential reductions in LOS with GIE. Blood transfusion requirements were reported in one study to be higher in patients undergoing GIE, reflecting its frequent use in severe cases. The safety and effectiveness of GIE varied depending on patient characteristics, timing of the procedure, and type of intervention.
conclusionGIE has the potential to improve survival in certain patients with ACS complicated by GIB; however, determining the ideal timing and appropriate candidates necessitates careful individual assessment. While evidence suggests benefits, the limitations of observational studies warrant caution. Collaboration between cardiology and gastroenterology is essential to optimizing outcomes. Future randomized trials should focus on timing, severity, and diverse populations to refine guidelines and improve care for this high-risk group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.