You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Response to the recently published guidelines on lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Response to the recently published guidelines on lower gastrointestinal bleeding
  1. Samuel Snelling1,
  2. Rania Ghaffar2,
  3. Stephen Thomas Ward1
  1. 1Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Stephen Thomas Ward, Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2GW, UK; drsteveward{at}yahoo.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319515

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In response to the recently published national guideline on lower GI bleeding written by Oakland et al,1 we have audited our practice at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (QEHB). We were most interested by the general recommendation for CT angiography and for the use of ‘Shock Index’ to select patients for CT angiography, with the aim to identify the source of bleeding.

    When retrospectively analysing 4 years of admissions (905) for lower GI bleeding, we found that 74 patients underwent CT angiography, with a total of 91 scans. This 8% rate is higher than the national 5.9%.1

    Our most interesting finding was the identification of bleeding points …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed equally to the construction of the text and all authors had the opportunity to view the final text prior to submission.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.