Browsing Medicina by Subject "endoscopía de revisión"
Now showing items 1-1 of 1
Incidencia de resangrado en pacientes con Hemorragia digestiva alta no variceal: Análisis comparativo entre pacientes sometidos y no sometidos a “Second look”(Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), 2015-01-29)Background: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies. Part of its approach includes performing a second endoscopy, known as second look (SL). However, its indications and usefulness are controversial. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of SL in preventing nosocomial rebleeding in adult patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 1144 patients diagnosed with UGIB admitted at a Digestive Bleeding Unit of a reference center for Social Security in Lima, Peru was performed; during the years 2012 and 2014. The response variable was rebleeding and the exposure variable was programmed SL. Besides hemoglobin on admission, comorbidities, blood transfusion and endoscopic variables were measured. The cumulative incidence, relative risk (RR) and effectiveness were calculated, and using a generalized linear model of the Poisson family link log with robust standard errors, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated. Results: The cumulative incidence rebleeding overall was 24.48% (n = 280). Significant difference between the cumulative incidences (IA) between the SL group and the control group (11.7% vs 29.0%, respectively, p <0.01) was found. The RR was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29 - 0.56) .The calculated effectiveness was 59.81% (95% CI: 44.17 - 71.08). The regression models also found a decrease in incidence in both crude model (IRR: 0.34 95% CI 0.24 to 0.49) and in the adjusted models. The first model was adjusted for variables with statistically significant differences between exposed and unexposed (IRR: 0.12 95% CI 1.8 to 0.18), the second was adjusted for variables that were significantly associated with rebleeding (IRR 0.21 95% CI 0.15-0.30). The third model was adjusted for variables that met classical criteria of confusion (IRR: 0.12 95% CI 0.08 to 0.18).Acceso abierto