Management of Hematemesis After Initial Fluid Resuscitation
After initial fluid resuscitation in a patient with hematemesis, the next step is to administer blood products if hemodynamically unstable or hemoglobin <100 g/L, followed by urgent endoscopy within 24 hours—nasogastric tube insertion is not routinely recommended and should be avoided as it complicates diagnosis and treatment. 1, 2
Immediate Priorities After Fluid Resuscitation
Blood Product Administration
Transfuse red blood cell concentrate when:
Restrictive transfusion thresholds (hemoglobin 70-80 g/L) are recommended in stable patients 2
Continued Resuscitation Monitoring
- Insert urinary catheter and monitor hourly urine output (target >30 mL/hour) 1, 3
- Continuously monitor pulse and blood pressure using automated monitoring 1, 3
- Consider central venous pressure monitoring in patients with significant cardiac disease (target CVP 5-10 cm H₂O) 1, 3
- If patient remains shocked after 1-2 liters of saline, administer plasma expanders as this indicates ≥20% blood volume loss 1, 3
Pre-Endoscopic Medical Therapy
- Administer intravenous proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy before endoscopy to potentially downstage the lesion and decrease probability of high-risk stigmata 2, 4
- Consider prokinetic agents 30-60 minutes before endoscopy to aid in diagnosis 4
Endoscopy Timing (The Definitive Next Step)
Endoscopy must be performed within 24 hours of presentation for all patients with upper GI bleeding 1, 2, 3, 4
Emergency endoscopy is indicated for:
Endoscopy should only be performed after adequate resuscitation is achieved 1, 3
For severely bleeding patients, consider endotracheal intubation before endoscopy to prevent pulmonary aspiration 3
Why NOT Nasogastric Tube?
Nasogastric tube insertion should be avoided in the acute setting because:
- It complicates diagnosis and treatment in the hospital 5
- It does not change management decisions or improve outcomes 5
- Only 3-16% of patients with upper GI bleeding may have a negative nasogastric aspirate, limiting its diagnostic utility 1
- Avoid invasive procedures like NGT insertion unless other measures to relieve symptoms have failed 6
Risk Stratification to Guide Intensity of Care
Severe Bleeding (High-Risk Features)
- Age >60 years with pulse >100 bpm, systolic BP <100 mmHg, hemoglobin <100 g/L 1
- Rockall score >8 indicates high mortality risk 1, 2
- Shock index (heart rate/systolic BP) >1 indicates hemodynamic instability 2
- These patients require intensive monitoring, urinary catheter, and urgent endoscopy 1
Mild-to-Moderate Bleeding (Low-Risk Features)
- Age <60 years with normal vital signs and hemoglobin >100 g/L 1, 2
- Rockall score <3 associated with excellent prognosis 1, 2
- These patients can be managed on general medical ward with hourly vital sign monitoring and semi-elective endoscopy on next available list 1
Special Considerations
- Identify patients with significant liver disease early as they require specific management protocols 1, 3
- Bloody hematemesis plus melena indicates worse outcomes (composite endpoint 62.4% vs 25.6% for isolated hematemesis) and potentially warrants more urgent endoscopy 7
- Bloody hematemesis is associated with higher rates of hemostatic intervention (19.4%) and rebleeding (7.8%) compared to coffee-ground emesis 7
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Do not delay endoscopy for routine NGT placement 5
- Do not perform endoscopy before adequate resuscitation 1, 3
- Do not use vasopressors in the acute bleeding phase—focus on volume replacement 1
- Do not assume bloody hematemesis is more severe than coffee-grounds emesis—they have similar hemodynamic parameters at presentation 7