The Experts below are selected from a list of 282 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Anne Foley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Lower Endoscopic Diagnostic Yields Observed in Non-Hematemesis Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Anupam Singh, Muhammad Al-sayid, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Background Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. Aim To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. Methods A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. Results The Hematemesis group ( n  = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group ( n  = 231), ( p  = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients ( n  = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate ( n  = 33). Conclusion Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

  • lower endoscopic diagnostic yields observed in non Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Muhammad Alsayid, Anupam Singh, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. The Hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

Salmaan Jawaid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Lower Endoscopic Diagnostic Yields Observed in Non-Hematemesis Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Anupam Singh, Muhammad Al-sayid, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Background Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. Aim To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. Methods A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. Results The Hematemesis group ( n  = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group ( n  = 231), ( p  = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients ( n  = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate ( n  = 33). Conclusion Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

  • lower endoscopic diagnostic yields observed in non Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Muhammad Alsayid, Anupam Singh, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. The Hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

Reuben J Garciacarrasquillo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Hematemesis due to prolapse gastropathy an emetogenic injury
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1998
    Co-Authors: Floyd Byfield, Rosario Ligresti, Peter H R Green, John Finegold, Reuben J Garciacarrasquillo
    Abstract:

    Hematemesis after vomiting or recurrent retching is usually considered to be due to a MalloryWeiss tear of the mucosa at the gastroesophageal junction.1 These tears account for about 5% of patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.2 We have encountered 7 patients who presented with Hematemesis after periods of vomiting or retching who had a localized area of congested or hemorrhagic mucosa in the upper stomach as the main finding at endoscopy. This lesion has been described as an emetogenic injury or prolapse gastropathy3-7 and is thought to arise as a result of forceful retrograde prolapse of the gastric mucosa into the gastroesophageal junction. We identified 475 patients who underwent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding between November 1995 and September 1996. Seven patients (2%) were considered to have gastric mucosal prolapse as the cause of their bleeding. All patients experienced Hematemesis after a variable period of retching and emesis. The clinical presentation and endoscopic findings of the seven patients are described in Table 1. Patient No. 6 is described in detail below.

Neil B Marya - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Lower Endoscopic Diagnostic Yields Observed in Non-Hematemesis Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Anupam Singh, Muhammad Al-sayid, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Background Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. Aim To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. Methods A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. Results The Hematemesis group ( n  = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group ( n  = 231), ( p  = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients ( n  = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate ( n  = 33). Conclusion Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

  • lower endoscopic diagnostic yields observed in non Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Muhammad Alsayid, Anupam Singh, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. The Hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

Bilal Gondal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Lower Endoscopic Diagnostic Yields Observed in Non-Hematemesis Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Anupam Singh, Muhammad Al-sayid, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Background Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. Aim To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. Methods A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. Results The Hematemesis group ( n  = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group ( n  = 231), ( p  = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group ( p  = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients ( n  = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate ( n  = 33). Conclusion Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.

  • lower endoscopic diagnostic yields observed in non Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
    Co-Authors: Salmaan Jawaid, Neil B Marya, Bilal Gondal, Louise Maranda, Christopher Marshall, Joseph Charpentier, Abbas Rupawala, Muhammad Alsayid, Anupam Singh, Anne Foley
    Abstract:

    Location of bleeding can present a diagnostic challenge in patients without Hematemesis more so than those with Hematemesis. To describe endoscopic diagnostic yields in both Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patient populations. A retrospective analysis on a cohort of 343 consecutively identified gastrointestinal bleeding patients admitted to a tertiary care center emergency department with Hematemesis and non-Hematemesis over a 12-month period. Data obtained included presenting symptoms, diagnostic lesions, procedure types with diagnostic yields, and hours to diagnosis. The Hematemesis group (n = 105) took on average 15.6 h to reach a diagnosis versus 30.0 h in the non-Hematemesis group (n = 231), (p = 0.005). In the non-Hematemesis group, the first procedure was diagnostic only 53% of the time versus 71% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.02). 25% of patients in the non-Hematemesis group required multiple procedures versus 10% in the Hematemesis group (p = 0.004). Diagnostic yield for a primary esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 71% for the Hematemesis group versus 50% for the non-Hematemesis group (p = 0.01). Primary colonoscopies were diagnostic in 54% of patients and 12.5% as a secondary procedure in the non-Hematemesis group. A primary video capsule endoscopy yielded a diagnosis in 79% of non-Hematemesis patients (n = 14) and had a 70% overall diagnostic rate (n = 33). Non-Hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding patients undergo multiple non-diagnostic tests and have longer times to diagnosis and then compared those with Hematemesis. The high yield of video capsule endoscopy in the non-Hematemesis group suggests a role for this device in this context and warrants further investigation.