ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026
Endoscopic evaluation in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding receiving anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common adverse event of anticoagulation in patients undergoing treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is often assessed by endoscopic evaluation. It remains unclear whether identification of the bleeding source impacts outcomes. Our aim was to describe endoscopic evaluation strategies, management, and outcomes in patients with GIB complicating anticoagulation for VTE. Methods: Patients in the Mayo Clinic VTE registry between March 2013 and October 2021 were prospectively followed. For patients with a first episode of GIB, endoscopic studies and related interventions were reviewed. Results: Among the 3287 patients, 109 (3%) experienced GIB (median age = 67, 52.3% female). Endoscopic evaluation occurred in 73 patients (67%): upper endoscopy (n = 53, 49%), colonoscopy (n = 41, 38%), and capsule endoscopy (n = 2, 2%). Endoscopy identified a bleeding source in 51 cases (73%), and hemostatic intervention occurred in 19 cases (26%). A bleeding source was not identified in 26 (24%) of cases. Among the 33 (30%) patients who did not undergo endoscopic evaluation, the majority (n = 29, 88%) had an identified source by either prior endoscopy or alternative imaging modality. Anticoagulation was interrupted in 90 (82%) patients for an average of 3.5 days; this was similar regardless of whether a source was identified. During follow-up (median = 103 days), 16 (14.7%) patients experienced a recurrent GIB, and 54 (50%) patients died. Rates of recurrent bleeding, VTE, and death were similar between patients with identified and unidentified bleeding sources. Conclusions: Although endoscopy has a high diagnostic yield in anticoagulated patients, anticoagulation management and clinical outcomes are similar regardless of GIB source identification. Further studies are needed to determine the net clinical benefit of endoscopy in this high-risk cohort.
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.