11/26/2010 Acute myocardial infarction post-gastrointestinal bleeding: A clinical dilemma with poor prognosis Su X, Li J, Du L, Wei Y, Li H, Sang H, - Saudi J Gastroenterol
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 754 

Previous Article  Table of Contents Next Article  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year :   |  Volume :   |  Issue :   |  Page :
Acute myocardial infarction post-gastrointestinal bleeding: A clinical dilemma with poor prognosis


1 Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
2 Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Click here for correspondence address and email
Date of Submission06-Jul-2022
Date of Acceptance29-Aug-2022
Date of Web Publication26-Sep-2022
 

   Abstract 


Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a severe clinical condition with treatment contradiction and poor prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of in-hospital mortality in patients with GIB who subsequently suffered from AMI and to explore the potential risk factors for this condition.
Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 77 patients diagnosed with GIB, who subsequently suffered from AMI, were enrolled from January 2013 to March 2022. Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were collected. The in-hospital mortality was the outcome of interest. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the potential risk factors of in-hospital mortality.
Results: Among the 77 patients included in this study, 62 (80.52%) were males. The mean age of patients was 65.88 ± 12.15 years, and 48 patients (62.34%) were non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). There were 16 (20.78%) cases of in-hospital deaths. The subjects who died showed higher levels of white blood cell count (13.05 ± 5.76 vs. 9.31 ± 4.07 × 109/L, P = 0.003) and troponin I (TnI) (9.23 ± 9.17 vs. 4.12 ± 5.03 μg/L, P = 0.003). Besides, there were higher proportions of cardiogenic shock (81.25% vs. 26.23%, P < 0.001) and mechanical ventilator usage (75.0% vs. 11.48%, P < 0.001) among the patients who died. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that white blood cell count (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.39, P = 0.030), cardiogenic shock (OR 12.18, 95% CI 3.06–48.39, P = 0.017), and mechanical ventilator usage (OR 7.21, 95% CI 1.28–40.51, P = 0.025) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality.
Conclusions: The in-hospital mortality of patients with GIB who subsequently develop AMI is high. White blood cell count, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage are independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: Acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, gastrointestinal bleeding, in-hospital mortality, mechanical ventilator


How to cite this URL:
Su X, Li J, Du L, Wei Y, Li H, Sang H. Acute myocardial infarction post-gastrointestinal bleeding: A clinical dilemma with poor prognosis. Saudi J Gastroenterol [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2022 Dec 6]. Available from: https://www.saudijgastro.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=357120





   Introduction Top


Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the common emergencies with substantial morbidity and mortality.[1],[2],[3] Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a category of disease associated with the greatest mortality and morbidity.[4],[5] The situation worsens when an individual diagnosed with GIB subsequently suffers from AMI.

GIB causes decrease of effective circulating volume and affects the blood supply of the myocardium, thus leading to AMI.[6] Meanwhile, massive blood loss in the digestive tract leads to decrease of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin, reduction of cardiac oxygen supply capacity, activation of the coagulation system, formation of thrombosis, and then aggravation of AMI. Importantly, there is a contradiction in treatment of the above situation. GIB needs hemostatic treatment, while patients with AMI need antithrombotic therapy. AMI limits the use of endoscopy, although endoscopic hemostasis is a fast and effective method to control GIB. Meanwhile, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antithrombotic therapy which are crucial treatments for AMI are of limited use because of GIB. Multiple factors lead to a worse prognosis in patients with GIB complicating AMI.

Presently, there is limited data on AMI post-GIB. In this present study, we aimed to identify the current status, evaluate the rate of in-hospital mortality in patients with GIB who subsequently suffer from AMI, and explore the potential risk factors for this condition.


   Patients and Methods Top


Study population

This study was a retrospective analysis of hospitalized patients with AMI post-GIB at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. Patients admitted for GIB with subsequent AMI were retrospectively enrolled, from January 2013 to March 2022. The inclusion criterion was confirmed admission diagnosis of GIB with subsequent AMI. Patients with a positive fecal occult blood test but no visible melena or without any other clinical evidence of GIB were excluded. In addition, subjects with AMI who subsequently suffered GIB were also excluded. This research was approved by the ethics committee of the institution.

Data collection

We retrospectively collected data concerning patients' demographic information (age, sex), timing and main manifestations of GIB, types of AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, stroke, and gastrointestinal disease), medication history (aspirin, P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), admission features (admission heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure), echocardiographic features (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]), laboratory data (hemoglobin, red blood cells, platelet, white blood cells, aspartate aminotransferase [AST], albumin, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen [BUN], estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP], troponin I [TnI], prothrombin time [PT], activated partial thromboplastin time [APTT], total cholesterol [TC], triglycerides [TG], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], and C-reactive protein [CRP]), and clinical characteristics (blood transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage). Laboratory data were recorded at admission and re-checked during hospitalization.

Definitions

GIB was defined as clinically evident GIB (hematemesis, coffee-ground emesis and melena, and bloody stool) accompanied by decreased hemoglobin levels. AMI was diagnosed according to the fourth universal definition,[7] containing STEMI and NSTEMI. Each variable was defined following cardiovascular data standards.[8] The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality from all causes, including cardiac death, multiple organ failure, massive hemorrhage/intracranial hemorrhage, and sudden death.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are shown as frequencies and percentages, whereas continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test, whereas categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Logistical regression was performed to evaluate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between risk factors and in-hospital mortality. Variables related to in-hospital mortality in univariate analysis (P < 0.10) were included in the multiple logistic regression model. The factors entered into the multivariate logistical regression analysis were as follows: white blood cells, NT-proBNP, TnI, D-dimer, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0 software. A two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


A total of 77 patients diagnosed with GIB complicating AMI were included in the present analysis. Among the 77 subjects, 62 (80.52%) were males; the mean age of the subjects was 65.88 ± 12.15 years and 48 (62.34%) were NSTEMI. In addition, 36 (46.75%) patients had coronary artery disease, 18 (23.38%) patients had gastrointestinal disease, 28 (36.36%) were on aspirin, and 12 (15.58%) were on P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. Besides, 49 (63.64%) received blood transfusion, 29 (37.66%) had cardiogenic shock, and 19 (24.68%) were on mechanical ventilator [Table 1].
Table 1: Characteristics of AMI post-GIB patients

Click here to view


There were 16 (20.78%) cases of in-hospital deaths. Causes of death included refractory heart failure (11, 68.75%), hemorrhage event (2, 12.50%), and multiple system organ failure (3, 18.75%). The subjects who died showed higher levels of white blood cell count (13.05 ± 5.76 vs. 9.31 ± 4.07 × 109/L, P = 0.003) and TnI (9.23 ± 9.17 vs. 4.12 ± 5.03 μg/L, P = 0.003). Besides, there were higher proportions of cardiogenic shock (81.25% vs. 26.23%, P < 0.001) and use of mechanical ventilator (75.00% vs. 11.48%, P < 0.001) among the patients who died. The other characteristics had no difference between the two groups. Among the 61 survivors, 14 underwent PCI after GIB control and three underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

We further conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with in-hospital mortality. The factors that showed statistical differences between the survival group and death group were selected for analysis. The factors entered into the multivariate logistical regression analysis were as follows: white blood cells, NT-proBNP, TnI, D-dimer, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that white blood cell count (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02–1.39, P = 0.030), cardiogenic shock (OR 12.18, 95% CI 3.06–48.39, P = 0.017), and mechanical ventilator usage (OR 7.21, 95% CI 1.28–40.51, P = 0.025) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality [Table 2].
Table 2: Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for mortality

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In this retrospective study, we found that the in-hospital mortality of patients with GIB who subsequently suffered from AMI was extremely high. High levels of white blood cell count, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage were found to be independent predictors of poor prognosis.

To our knowledge, our study is the largest in terms of number of patients with AMI post-GIB. Previous studies have mainly focused on GIB post-AMI, and these findings demonstrated that GIB, including lower and upper gastrointestinal origins, was independently associated with increased mortality.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] However, few studies have focused on AMI post-GIB. Although there are similar situations, the pathogenesis of the two conditions is different. GIB post-AMI is mainly related to antithrombotic therapy, while AMI post-GIB is a cardiovascular event induced by reduced blood volume. One population-based, nested case–control study illustrated that AMI risk in patients with coronary artery disease doubled after GIB.[6]

In our study, the in-hospital mortality of GIB patients who subsequently suffered from AMI was 20.78%. The mechanism of poor prognosis in patients with GIB complicating AMI may be multifactorial. Firstly, GIB reduces effective circulation volume, resulting in bleeding-related hemodynamic instability and affecting the blood supply to the myocardium. Secondly, massive blood loss in the digestive tract leads to decrease of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin, activation of the coagulation system, formation of thrombosis, and then aggravation of AMI. Thirdly, GIB usually requires massive rehydration and blood transfusion, undoubtedly increasing the fluid load and easily inducing acute heart failure. Meanwhile, blood transfusion after GIB may have indirect effects, leading to systemic inflammation in the prethrombotic state, increasing oxidative stress, and paradoxically reducing oxygen delivery, all of which could lead to worse results.[15] Moreover, given the risk of major bleeding, AMI post-GIB patients are usually unable to receive antithrombotic therapy and PCI in time, which are crucial treatments for AMI. In addition, patients with AMI post-GIB had poor baseline clinical characteristics, such as older age and more comorbidities, which might be associated with poor outcomes. Based on the combined effect of the above reasons, the mortality of GIB complicating AMI is higher than that of each condition.

In the present study, patients with GIB complicating AMI were older, had more comorbidities, and most of them were NSTEMI. Previous studies have shown that NSTEMI patients often have a high likelihood of multi-vessel coronary artery disease,[16] which may be one of the factors of poor prognosis in patients with AMI post-GIB. Besides, in our study, 36 (46.75%) patients had coronary artery disease, 18 (23.38%) patients had gastrointestinal disease, 28 (36.36%) patients were on aspirin, and 12 (15.58%) patients were on P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. These indirectly suggest that the risk of GIB is high for patients with gastrointestinal and previous coronary heart disease treated with antiplatelet therapy. For those patients at high risk of GIB, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or other gastroprotective drugs can be used to prevent GIB.[17],[18] In addition, individualized antiplatelet therapy, such as shorter dual antiplatelet therapy or aspirin-free strategy, may reduce the risk of GIB.[19],[20],[21]

Our study aims to describe and explore potential predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with GIB complicating AMI. In our study, white blood cell count, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage were independent risk predictors of in-hospital mortality in GIB patients with AMI. Previous studies demonstrated that white blood cell count was associated with mortality in patients with AMI.[22],[23] Our study found that white blood cell count was an independent risk predictor of inhospital mortality in GIB patients with AMI. Patients with cardiogenic shock often present with poor cardiac function and serious conditions, and these patients tend to have poor outcomes.[24] At the same time, patients using mechanical ventilation generally suffer from refractory heart failure and respiratory failure and then have a poor prognosis.[25],[26]

This study is helpful in identifying AMI post-GIB patients with a high risk of in-hospital mortality, so as to pay more attention to these individuals. Patients with AMI post-GIB are in severe condition and need to be treated in the intensive care unit. Close monitoring should be done during the treatment to prevent the complications of AMI and GIB. Given the poor prognosis of AMI post-GIB, it is critical to prevent GIB in high-risk individuals. In addition, patients with GIB need to be closely monitored for cardiovascular events. Once AMI occurs, symptomatic treatment should be given as soon as possible.

The present study has several limitations. Firstly, as a retrospective study, there is a common disadvantage, that is, the analysis of pre-recorded data. Secondly, in our study, few patients underwent endoscopy. Although some studies have shown that endoscopic treatment of GIB in AMI patients is relatively safe,[27],[28],[29] clinicians usually choose relatively conservative therapy to avoid medical disputes. In addition, these patients usually received conservative treatment, so there were little coronary angiography data in the record. Besides, it was a retrospective single-center study with a small number of cases, and therefore, the power is limited. Finally, there is no definitive guideline for this particular situation, and clinicians usually deal with this complex condition based on experience.

In conclusion, the in-hospital mortality of patients with GIB who subsequently suffered from AMI is high. High levels of white blood cell count, cardiogenic shock, and mechanical ventilator usage were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hearnshaw SA, Logan RFA, Lowe D, Travis SPL, Murphy MF, Palmer KR. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: Patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut 2011;60:1327-35.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
El-Tawil AM. Trends on gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality: Where are we standing? World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:1154-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Anand SS, Xie C, Fox KAA, Yusuf S. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2006;114:774-82.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Heart Disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: A report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:e38-360.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Johansson S, Rosengren A, Young K, Jennings E. Mortality and morbidity trends after the first year in survivors of acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017;17:53.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Wu C-J, Lin H-J, Weng S-F, Hsu C-C, Wang J-J, Su S-B, et al. Acute myocardial infarction risk in patients with coronary artery disease doubled after upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding: A nationwide nested case-control study. PloS One 2015;10:e0142000. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0142000.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Circulation 2018;138:e618-51.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Anderson HV, Weintraub WS, Radford MJ, Kremers MS, Roe MT, Shaw RE, et al. Standardized cardiovascular data for clinical research, registries, and patient care: A report from the Data Standards Workgroup of the National Cardiovascular Research Infrastructure project. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1835-46.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Albeiruti R, Chaudhary F, Alqahtani F, Kupec J, Balla S, Alkhouli M. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2019;124:343-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Shi W, Fan X, Yang J, Ni L, Su S, Yu M, et al. In-hospital gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction: incidence, outcomes and risk factors analysis from China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. BMJ Open 2021;11:e044117.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sarajlic P, Simonsson M, Jernberg T, Bäck M, Hofmann R. Incidence, associated outcomes, and predictors of upper gastrointestinal bleeding following acute myocardial infarction: A SWEDEHEART-based nationwide cohort study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2022;8:483-91.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Moukarbel GV, Signorovitch JE, Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJV, White HD, Maggioni AP, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding in high risk survivors of myocardial infarction: The VALIANT Trial. Eur Heart J 2009;30:2226-32.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Nikolsky E, Stone GW, Kirtane AJ, Dangas GD, Lansky AJ, McLaurin B, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Incidence, predictors, and clinical implications: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1293-302.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Su X, Wei Y, Pang S, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Zheng P, et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors of in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction with subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding: A single-center experience. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:942467.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Doyle BJ, Rihal CS, Gastineau DA, Holmes DR. Bleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: Implications for contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2019-27.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Baumann AAW, Mishra A, Worthley MI, Nelson AJ, Psaltis PJ. Management of multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A complex path to precision medicine. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2020;11:2040622320938527.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sehested TSG, Carlson N, Hansen PW, Gerds TA, Charlot MG, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy after myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2019;40:1963-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Schjerning Olsen A-M, Lindhardsen J, Gislason GH, McGettigan P, Hlatky MA, Fosbøl E, et al. Impact of proton pump inhibitor treatment on gastrointestinal bleeding associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among post-myocardial infarction patients taking antithrombotics: Nationwide study. BMJ 2015;351:h5096. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5096.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sibbing D, Aradi D, Jacobshagen C, Gross L, Trenk D, Geisler T, et al. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS): A randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet (London, England) 2017;390:1747-57.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kim B-K, Hong S-J, Cho Y-H, Yun KH, Kim YH, Suh Y, et al. Effect of ticagrelor monotherapy vs ticagrelor with aspirin on major bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: The TICO randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;323:2407-16.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, Cohen DJ, Angiolillo DJ, Briguori C, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2032-42.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cannon CP, McCabe CH, Wilcox RG, Bentley JH, Braunwald E. Association of white blood cell count with increased mortality in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina pectoris. OPUS-TIMI 16 investigators. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:636-9, A10. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149 (00) 01444-2.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Grzybowski M, Welch RD, Parsons L, Ndumele CE, Chen E, Zalenski R, et al. The association between white blood cell count and acute myocardial infarction in-hospital mortality: findings from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1049-60.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Barsness GW, Henry TD, Menon V, Rihal CS, et al. Cardiogenic shock classification to predict mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:2117-28.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Vallabhajosyula S, Kashani K, Dunlay SM, Vallabhajosyula S, Vallabhajosyula S, Sundaragiri PR, et al. Acute respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in the USA, 2000-2014. Ann Intensive Care 2019;9:96.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Vallabhajosyula S, Dunlay SM, Prasad A, Kashani K, Sakhuja A, Gersh BJ, et al. Acute noncardiac organ failure in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:1781-91.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Lim RG, Cobell WJ, Theivanayagam S, Kilgore TW, Matteson ML, Puli SR, et al. Endoscopy after acute myocardial infarction: An evaluation of safety. South Med J 2013;106:545-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Cena M, Gomez J, Alyousef T, Trohman RG, Pierko K, Agarwal R. Safety of endoscopic procedures after acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review. Cardiol J 2012;19:447-52.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Modi RM, Li F, Mumtaz K, Hinton A, Lilly SM, Hussan H, et al. Colonoscopy in patients with postmyocardial infarction gastrointestinal bleeding: A nationwide analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019;53:23-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Yuzhen Wei,
No. 1 Jianshe Dong Road, ErQi District, Zhengzhou, Henan
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_301_22

PMID: 36153929




 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Previous Article   Next Article
 
  Search
 
  Ahead Of Print
  
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Su X
    -  Li J
    -  Du L
    -  Wei Y
    -  Li H
    -  Sang H
        PDF Version


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Patients and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed570    
    PDF Downloaded7    

Recommend this journal