Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Original Article Influence of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective single-center analysis in Korea
Ji Hoon Yu1orcid, Hyun Tak Lee1orcid, Seok Ki Jang2orcid, Ah Young Lee3orcid, Jun-young Seo1,orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.209
Published online: January 21, 2025

1Department of Gastroenterology, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

2Department of Radiology, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

3Department of Gastroenterology, Cha Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University, Cha University of School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jun-young Seo Department of Gastroenterology, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, 20 Seohyeon-ro 180beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13590, Korea E-mail: terryxom11@naver.com
• Received: July 30, 2024   • Revised: October 6, 2024   • Accepted: October 13, 2024

© 2025 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 183 Views
  • 33 Download
  • Background/Aims
    Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a major cause of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. As the older population increases, the prevalence of sarcopenia is also growing. Although sarcopenia influences the prognosis of various diseases, its association with clinical outcomes of PUB remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore this correlation.
  • Methods
    We retrospectively analyzed 2,050 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy for suspected gastrointestinal bleeding between January 2014 and December 2021. Patients who underwent computed tomography scans were included for sarcopenia evaluation based on the psoas muscle index, defined as the total psoas area normalized by the square of the height of the patient. Sarcopenia was defined using specific cutoffs: ≤7.3 cm2/m2 and ≤5.1 cm2/m2 for men and women, respectively. The primary outcome measured was the 30-day mortality rate.
  • Results
    Out of 358 patients, 149 were diagnosed with sarcopenia. The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with sarcopenia than in those without. Multivariate regression analysis revealed significant associations between sarcopenia, a high age, blood tests, and comorbidity score, and administration of inotropic agents with 30-day mortality.
  • Conclusions
    Our study showed that the presence of sarcopenia, elevated comorbidity scores, and use of inotropes were associated with higher 30-day mortality rates. Considering that sarcopenia may influence the clinical outcomes in patients with PUB, it is crucial to manage patients with sarcopenia with particular care.
Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a leading cause of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and can result in poor prognosis if not properly managed.1 Recent studies have shown a decline in the incidence of PUB owing to increased Helicobacter pylori eradication and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. However, the mortality rate remains high at 6% to 14%,2-4 which is attributed to the increased use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiplatelet agents, along with the aging population and rise in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular diseases.5-8
Due to the recent increase in life expectancy, the proportion of older patients with sarcopenia is also increasing. Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalized skeletal muscle disorder common among older individuals and is associated with multiple comorbidities.9,10 Sarcopenia is associated with various disease outcomes, including frailty and inflammatory bowel, cardiovascular, and liver diseases.11-18 Studies have shown that sarcopenia may lead to unfavorable clinical outcomes in various diseases.19-22 A recent study revealed that sarcopenia is associated with a higher prevalence of peptic ulcer disease.23 However, few studies have investigated the relationship between sarcopenia and the clinical outcomes of PUB.
Several factors and scoring systems have been used to predict clinical outcomes in patients with PUB. The Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS) is designed to determine the need for clinical interventions such as transfusion, emergency endoscopy, or hospitalization and predict mortality in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.24 Based on the GBS, patients with a score of 0 can be safely managed as outpatients.25 The AIMS65 score (albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years) is a useful tool for assessing the prognosis of upper GI bleeding. According to the AIMS65 criteria, patients with a score of 2 or more are considered high risk.26 The Rockall score is the most widely used scoring system and consists of age, shock, comorbidities, and evidence of bleeding. It effectively predicted the risk of rebleeding and mortality.27-29 Recently, age, blood tests, and comorbidity (ABC) score, designed to predict mortality in individuals with upper and lower GI bleeding, showed superior performance in predicting patient clinical outcomes compared with other scoring systems.30,31
Few studies have analyzed the relationship between sarcopenia and the clinical outcomes of PUB; however, none have evaluated the role or predictive accuracy of bleeding scoring systems in patients with sarcopenia. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the correlation between sarcopenia and PUB outcomes and assess the efficacy of bleeding scores in these patients.
Patients
We conducted a retrospective review of 2,050 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for suspected GI bleeding at the emergency department of the Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital between January 2014 and December 2021. Patients without evidence of GI bleeding (n=661), small bowel bleeding (n=30), or lower GI bleeding (n=323) were excluded. Furthermore, we excluded patients with variceal bleeding (n=190), Mallory-Weiss syndrome (n=74), postprocedural bleeding (n=19), gastric angiodysplasia (n=13), marginal ulcer bleeding (n=9), cancer bleeding (n=85), or other bleeding foci (n=90). Other bleeding foci include bleeding from Zenker’s diverticulum, feeding tube-induced esophageal injury, esophageal tuberculosis, esophageal ulcer, Boerhaave syndrome, and hemorrhagic gastritis. Our center routinely performs enhanced computed tomography (CT) in patients with suspected bleeding to check for contrast extravasation in the GI tract. Among these patients, a CT scan was not performed if there were concerns regarding cost, kidney disease, and contrast allergy, or if the patient declined the examination. We excluded patients with PUB who did not undergo CT at presentation to the emergency department (n=198). Finally, our study included 358 patients with PUB who underwent CT (Fig. 1).
We also reviewed the medical history of the patients, including medication history, underlying diseases, laboratory findings, and endoscopic findings such as the location (stomach and duodenum) and size of the peptic ulcer, Forrest classification, and hemostasis methods from electronic medical records.
Definition
An emergent EGD was performed based on the judgment of the on-call gastroenterologist responsible for endoscopic treatment within 24 hours, following established guidelines for upper GI bleeding. The decision considered clinical signs, such as melena, hematochezia, hematemesis, new onset or worsening anemia, and hemodynamic instability. All patients with suspected PUB received high-dose acid suppression therapy (80 mg esomeprazole or pantoprazole via intravenous bolus, followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 8 mL/h for 72 hours).32 Treatment was based on physician judgment and tailored to the clinical condition of the patient. Bleeding was identified based on the signs of active bleeding, and endoscopic hemostasis was performed in patients with a Forrest classification of Ia, Ib, or IIa during endoscopy. The main bleeding focus site was anatomically determined to be the stomach and duodenum. Successful hemostasis was defined as effective bleeding control achieved at the end of the endoscopic procedure. In cases of hemostasis failure, we investigated the implementation of salvage therapies, such as transarterial embolization (TAE) and surgery. Rebleeding was defined as the recurrence of active bleeding with clinical manifestations such as melena, hematochezia, hematemesis, new onset or worsened anemia (a drop of >2 g/dL), and hemodynamic instability following the initial endoscopy. Rebleeding events were categorized based on their occurrence within 7 days or 30 days after the initial bleeding event. Mortality, measured as all-cause mortality, was classified into occurrence within 7 and 30 days after the initial bleeding event. The physical status of patients was assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification system. The ASA classification includes ASA I (a normal healthy patient), ASA II (a patient with mild systemic disease), ASA III (a patient with severe systemic disease), and ASA IV (a patient with severe systemic disease that poses a constant threat to life).
Endoscopic findings
Ulcer size was classified into two groups: larger than 1 cm and smaller. Endoscopic hemostasis methods included hemoclips, argon plasma coagulation, heat probes, band ligation, injection, and combination therapy. Combination therapy was defined as using two or more endoscopic hemostasis methods.
After the initial endoscopy, patients were closely monitored and treated with PPI. Discharge criteria were based on the absence of rebleeding signs. If signs of rebleeding were observed, a second-look endoscopy was performed. If rebleeding was identified, the endoscopist applied appropriate endoscopic hemostasis techniques similar to those used initially. In the Forrest classification, Ia is defined as spurting bleeding, Ib as oozing bleeding, IIa as a non-bleeding visible vessel, IIb as an adherent clot, IIc as hematin on the ulcer base, and III as a clean ulcer base.
Bleeding scores
This study used several bleeding scores to assess the severity of PUB. Four bleeding scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, Rockall, and ABC) were used. GBS assesses blood urea, hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, pulse, melena, syncope, hepatic disease, and cardiac failure to determine the urgency of endoscopic therapy.26 The AIMS65 score includes albumin level, international normalized ratio (INR), systolic blood pressure, altered mental status, and age, effectively predicting mortality. The Rockall score consisted of age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, comorbidities, endoscopic findings, and stigmata of recent hemorrhage. This study utilized the post-Rockall score, which integrates endoscopic findings.26 The ABC score includes the following factors: age, blood urea, albumin, creatinine, mental status, presence of liver cirrhosis, presence of disseminated malignancy, and an ASA score.30 Each score was defined and used based on established criteria.
Measurement of the psoas muscle index for definition of sarcopenia
We used abdominal CT imaging to measure the psoas muscle index (PMI) and defined sarcopenia according to the methods established in a previous study.33 An experienced radiologist (S.K.J.) retrospectively analyzed all CT scans on a standard desktop computer screen using INFINITT PACS (INFINITT Healthcare). In each study, we measured the cross-sectional areas of the right and left psoas muscles in the L4 vertebral body (Fig. 2). We then calculated the total psoas area by adding the measurements of both sides and normalizing them using the height of each patient, resulting in a PMI of cm2/m2.34 The definition of sarcopenia was based on previously validated criteria, with specific cutoffs of ≤7.3 cm²/m² and ≤5.1 cm²/m² for men and women, respectively.35
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using R ver. 4.3.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Continuous values are presented as mean and standard deviation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was used to assess the predictive accuracy of bleeding scores. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Based on previous studies, variables considered in our analysis included mental changes; INR prolongation; comorbidities; high GBS, Rockall, AIMS65, and ABC scores; Forrest classification; incidence of rebleeding within 30 days, presence of sarcopenia, and use of inotropic agents.
IRB approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital (approval number: 2023-12-006).
Patients
Of 358 patients, 149 had sarcopenia. Regarding baseline characteristics, patients with sarcopenia were significantly older than those without (72.6 years vs. 62.6 years, p<0.001). Additionally, the use of inotropic medications or vasopressors was more common in patients with sarcopenia than in those without (9.4% vs. 2.9%, p=0.02). In terms of laboratory findings, patients with sarcopenia exhibited significantly lower hemoglobin levels (8.2 g/dL vs. 9.0 g/dL, p=0.01) and albumin (3.2 g/dL vs. 3.5 g/dL, p<0.001). They were more likely to have a higher ASA classification (III and IV) than those without sarcopenia (III: 70.5% vs. 59.8%, IV: 6.0% vs. 2.4%, p=0.02) (Table 1).
Endoscopic findings
Patients with sarcopenia had a significantly higher prevalence of gastric ulcers than those without (80.5% vs. 61.2%, p<0.001). Patients with sarcopenia had lesions in the gastric body more frequently than those without (47.7% vs. 28.7%, p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding Forrest classification, ulcer size, or hemostasis method. Although the hemostasis success rate was lower in the sarcopenia group, the difference was not statistically significant. (87.1% vs. 91.7%, p=0.47) (Table 2).
Clinical outcomes
Bleeding rates at 7 and 30 days were lower in patients with sarcopenia than in those without; however, these differences were not statistically significant (3.4% vs. 7.2%, p=0.19; 7.4% vs. 10.5%, p=0.41). When categorizing the patients who experienced rebleeding within 30 days, patients with sarcopenia (n=149) had the following percentages of Forrest classifications: Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, IIc, and III were 1 (14%), 2 (12%), 6 (14%), 1 (5%), 0 (0%), and 1 (3%), respectively. In contrast, patients without sarcopenia (n=209) showed percentages of Forrest classifications as follows: Ia (33%), Ib (17%), IIa (25%), IIb (8%), IIc (0%), and III (5%) (Fig. 3).
The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with sarcopenia than in those without (4.0% vs. 0.0%, p=0.01). No significant difference in the rate of TAE as salvage therapy was observed between patients with and without sarcopenia (6.0% vs. 6.2%, p>0.99). Surgery was only performed in one patient with sarcopenia (Table 3).
Bleeding scores
In a study of 358 patients with PUB, those with sarcopenia (n=149) had significantly higher Rockall, GBS, and ABC scores than those without (n=209) (pre-Rockall, 4.3±1.6 vs. 3.4±1.8, p<0.001; post-Rockall, 5.4±2.0 vs. 4.7±2.0, p<0.001; GBS, 12.1±4.0 vs. 10.7±4.6, p=0.003; and ABC, 5.0±2.7 vs. 3.7 ± 2.6, p<0.001). Moreover, AIMS65 scores were higher in patients with sarcopenia than in those without; however, this difference was not statistically significant (2.4 vs. 2.3, p=0.199).
Among patients with sarcopenia, the mortality rate was 36.3% in those with an ABC score >10 (the cutoff point), compared with 1.4% in those with a score <10. Of the 92 patients with a GBS >12, 6.5% experienced mortality. Similarly, a mortality rate of 5.6% was observed in patients with an AIMS65 score >3. Seventy-three patients had a Rockall score >6 (the cutoff point) with a mortality rate of 6.8% (Fig. 4).
ROCs for bleeding scores
The ROCs for the bleeding scores (ABC, AIMS65, Rockall, and GBS scores) were analyzed to predict the 30-day mortality in the sarcopenia group. GBS ≥1, AIMS65 ≥2, Rockall score ≥5, and ABC score ≥8 predicted high-risk poor clinical outcomes (Supplementary Table 1).36 In patients with sarcopenia, the AUCs for the ABC, AIMS65, Rockall, and GBS scores were 0.82, 0.63, 0.72, and 0.82, respectively. The optimal cutoff value for the ABC score in predicting bleeding events was 10, demonstrating the highest sensitivity (66.7%) and specificity (96.6%) among the four bleeding scores. The AIMS65 score had a cutoff value of 3, yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 60.2%, respectively. The Rockall score, with a cutoff value of 6, showed sensitivity and specificity of 83.3% and 60.8%, respectively. The GBS, with a cutoff value of 12, demonstrated 100% specificity and an AUC of 0.74 (Fig. 5).
Multivariate regression analysis
Multivariate regression analysis revealed that a high ABC score (Beta=0.34, t=6.554, p<0.001), administration of inotropic medications or vasopressors (Beta=0.12, t=2.249, p=0.03), and the presence of sarcopenia (Beta=0.10, t=2.005, p=0.046) were significantly associated with an increased 30-day mortality risk (Table 4).
Our study is the first to analyze the association between sarcopenia and PUB clinical outcomes using various scoring systems, including the Rockall, GBS, AIMS65, and ABC scores. This study revealed that sarcopenia was associated with an increased 30-day mortality rate in patients with PUB. Additionally, the ABC score significantly predicted 30-day mortality in the PUB group.
A previous study reported that survival was lower in patients with sarcopenia after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early-stage gastric cancer.37 Other studies have indicated that patients with liver cirrhosis experience higher rates of complications, including GI bleeding, and lower survival rates in the group with sarcopenia than in those without.16,38 In our study, mortality in patients with PUB was significantly higher in the sarcopenia group than in those without sarcopenia. This is likely because patients with sarcopenia had significantly higher ASA scores at baseline, were more frequently administered inotropic medications or vasopressors upon emergency department admission, and had more severe systemic conditions with lower hemoglobin levels. Further multicenter studies with larger patient cohorts are needed to assess the influence of sarcopenia on PUB.
Endoscopic hemostatic treatment is the primary therapeutic option for acute upper GI bleeding.39 Endoscopic hemostasis rates for PUB are typically approximately 90%, consistent with the findings of this study, which reported a rate of 89.9%.40 Previous studies showed that the skeletal muscle mass was significantly lower in patients with sarcopenia.41-43 This may be attributed to the presumed lower transmural thickness of the stomach muscle layer in the sarcopenia group, potentially contributing to the higher severity of PUB. In our study, we observed more patients with sarcopenia in the Forrest Ia group. This suggests that the mucosal damage from peptic ulcers may be more severe in patients with sarcopenia, potentially complicating adequate endoscopic hemostasis.
Notably, we observed six cases of 30-day mortality, all of which occurred in the sarcopenia group. GI bleeding was the direct cause of death in three cases, while in the remaining three cases, it indirectly exacerbated the underlying conditions, leading to a fatal outcome (Supplementary Table 2). Our findings suggest that all-cause mortality occurred exclusively in the sarcopenic group. It is noteworthy that mortality occurred only in patients with sarcopenia, and further prospective studies are needed to investigate this further.
The ABC score has recently emerged as a powerful prognostic tool, providing a more appropriate assessment of upper GI bleeding than established scoring systems such as AIMS65, the Rockall score, and GBS.30,31 In our study, the sarcopenia group exhibited a higher ABC score with an AUC of 0.82 and multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant association between an ABC score of ≥10 and increased 30-day mortality, with the ABC score being the only factor significantly affecting 30-day mortality. These findings indicate that an ABC score cutoff of 10 may be more effective in predicting outcomes in patients with sarcopenia than other bleeding scores. Although the optimal cutoff value for the ABC score was previously set to 8 in previous studies, our study identified it as 10 owing to the older age and higher prevalence of comorbidities in the sarcopenia group.30
Sarcopenia is defined as low muscle strength, quantity, quality, and physical performance.44 Studies showed that various methods can assess sarcopenia. First, muscle strength was assessed using simple and cost-effective techniques, such as grip strength and a calibrated handheld dynamometer.45-47 Another method for determining muscle strength is the chair stand test, which measures the time required for patients to rise five times from a seated position without using their arms.48,49 Muscle quantity or mass can be reported as total body skeletal muscle mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass, or muscle cross-sectional area of specific muscle groups or body locations.44 Ultrasonography is another widely used technique for measuring muscle quantities. It demonstrates accuracy in elderly individuals with strong intra-and interobserver reliability.50 Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis have also been used for noninvasive muscle mass measurement.51,52 However, these methods are not easily applicable in the clinical setting for patients with PUB. Therefore, this study used CT to assess sarcopenia.
This study had some limitations. First, five endoscopists performed the endoscopic examinations, potentially introducing variations in techniques and skills that might have influenced the results. However, the gastroenterologists who conducted the endoscopy were all experienced endoscopists with over 10 years of expertise and adhered to the established procedural guidelines. Second, diagnosing sarcopenia requires evaluation of the physical performance of the patient. However, we defined sarcopenia solely based on CT quantification of the muscle. Therefore, future studies should incorporate diverse definitions of sarcopenia to explore this relationship further. Third, while we showed a significant association between sarcopenia and 30-day mortality, it is essential to recognize that the sarcopenia group was generally older and had more comorbidities, which could also influence clinical outcomes. Although we adjusted for several confounding factors, including age and comorbidities, residual confounding factors may remain. Age is a powerful predictor of poor outcomes in patients with PUB, and older patients may experience worse outcomes regardless of their sarcopenic status. Therefore, while performing propensity score matching based on the presence of sarcopenia would have been appropriate, this was not possible owing to the limited sample size of our study. Consequently, future multicenter studies with larger patient populations are warranted. Finally, as this was a single-center retrospective analysis, validation in a larger multicenter prospective study is required.
In conclusion, sarcopenia, high ABC scores, and inotropic administration were associated with increased 30-day mortality. Therefore, because sarcopenia may affect the clinical outcomes of patients with PUB, careful management is essential for patients with sarcopenia.
Supplementary Table 1. Abbreviation of bleeding score in gastrointestinal bleeding.
ce-2024-209-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf
Supplementary Table 2. Causes of death in patients with sarcopenia.
ce-2024-209-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf
Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.209.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of the study. EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; GI, gastrointestinal; CT, computed tomography. a)Zenker’s diverticulum, feeding tube-induced mucosal injury, esophageal tuberculosis, esophageal ulcer bleeding, Boerhaave syndrome, and hemorrhagic gastritis.
ce-2024-209f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Psoas muscle area—yellow color delineates the right and left psoas muscle with the respective areas. (A, B) Patient without sarcopenia (C, D) Patient with sarcopenia.
ce-2024-209f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Number of patients experiencing rebleeding within 30 days, categorized based on Forrest classification and the presence of sarcopenia.
ce-2024-209f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
No. of patients with sarcopenia experiencing mortality within 30 days based on the bleeding score with optimal cut-off value. ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years.
ce-2024-209f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) according to the bleeding scores. ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
ce-2024-209f5.jpg
ce-2024-209f6.jpg
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding categorized by the presence of sarcopenia
Characteristic Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
Sex (male/female) 233/125 143/66 90/59 0.14
Age (yr) 66.8±16.3 62.6±16.4 72.6±14.2 <0.001
 ≥65 185 (51.7) 84 (40.2) 101 (67.8) <0.001
Chief complaint
 Hematemesis 97 (27.0) 56 (26.9) 41 (27.7) 0.97
 Hematochezia 44 (12.3) 27 (12.9) 17 (11.4) 0.79
 Melena 237 (66.2) 147 (70.3) 90 (60.4) 0.07
 Anemia 11 (3.1) 6 (2.9) 5 (3.4) >0.99
 Othersa) 31 (10.1) 16 (7.7) 15 (10.1) 0.55
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 102.0±20.6 103.7±19.3 99.6±22.3 0.07
Pulse rate (/min) 98.7±19.8 99.0±17.2 98.4±22.9 0.77
Inotropic or vasopressor 20 (5.6) 6 (2.9) 14 (9.4) 0.02
Syncope or mental change 72 (20.1) 38 (18.2) 34 (22.8) 0.35
Laboratory finding
 Hemoglobin (g/dL) 8.7±2.9 9.0±3.0 8.2±2.6 0.01
 BUN (mg/dL) 45.2±25.3 44.2±24.6 46.5±26.1 0.39
 Creatine (mg/dL) 1.3±1.4 1.3±1.6 1.4±1.1 0.77
 Albumin (g/dL) 3.4±0.6 3.5±0.5 3.2±0.6 <0.001
 PT (INR) 1.2±0.4 1.2±0.4 1.2±0.3 0.32
  ≥1.5 26 (7.3) 11 (5.3) 15 (10.1) 0.13
Underlying diseases
 HTN 189 (52.8) 108 (51.7) 81 (54.4) 0.69
 DM 95 (26.5) 55 (26.3) 40 (26.8) >0.99
 Liver cirrhosis 35 (9.8) 18 (8.6) 17 (11.4) 0.49
 Cardiac diseasesb) 72 (20.1) 36 (17.2) 36 (24.2) 0.14
 CVA 54 (15.1) 27 (12.9) 27 (18.1) 0.23
 CKD or ESRD 42 (11.8) 19 (9.1) 23 (15.5) 0.09
 Metastatic malignancy 12 (3.4) 6 (2.9) 6 (4.0) 0.76
Medication
 Antiplatelet agent 113 (31.6) 68 (32.5) 45 (30.2) 0.72
 Anticoagulant 10 (2.8) 4 (1.9) 6 (4.0) 0.38
 NOAC 14 (3.9) 3 (1.4) 11 (7.4) 0.01
 NSAIDs 57 (15.9) 30 (14.4) 27 (18.1) 0.42
Helicobacter pylori 153 (59.3) 97 (61.4) 56 (56.0) 0.47
ASA class 0.02
 Ⅰ 17 (4.7) 13 (6.2) 4 (2.7)
 Ⅱ 97 (27.1) 66 (31.6) 31 (20.8)
 Ⅲ 230 (64.2) 125 (59.8) 105 (70.5)
 Ⅳ 14 (3.9) 5 (2.4) 9 (6.0)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

BUN, blood urea nitrogen; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; HTN, hypertension; DM, diabetes mellitus; CVA, cerebrovascular accidences; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ESRD, end-stage renal disease. NOAC, new oral anticoagulants; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

a)Others included Levin tube clot, chest pain, dyspnea, abdominal pain or vomiting.

b)Cardiac diseases included angina or heart failure.

Table 2.
Endoscopic finding and methods of hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding categorized by the presence of sarcopenia
Characteristics Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
Location of ulcer
 Fundus or cardia 22 (6.1) 14 (6.7) 8 (5.4) 0.77
 Body 131 (36.6) 60 (28.7) 71 (47.7) <0.001
 Antrum 131 (36.6) 72 (34.4) 59 (39.6) 0.38
 Duodenal bulb 112 (31.3) 81 (38.8) 31 (20.8) <0.001
 Duodenal 2nd portion 17 (4.7) 10 (4.8) 7 (4.7) >0.99
Main location <0.001
 Stomach 248 (69.3) 128 (61.2) 120 (80.5)
 Duodenum 110 (30.7) 81 (38.8) 29 (19.5)
Forrest classification
 Ia 13 (3.6) 6 (2.9) 7 (4.7) 0.53
 Ib 46 (12.8) 29 (13.9) 17 (11.4) 0.60
 IIa 125 (34.9) 81 (38.8) 44 (29.5) 0.09
 IIb 32 (8.9) 13 (6.2) 19 (12.8) 0.05
 IIc 46 (12.8) 24 (11.5) 22 (14.8) 0.45
 III 96 (26.8) 56 (26.8) 40 (26.8) >0.99
Size of ulcer (cm) 0.11
 ≥1 cm 162 (45.3) 98 (46.9) 64 (43.0)
 <1 cm 87 (24.3) 56 (26.8) 31 (20.8)
Methods of hemostasis
 Clipping 116 (32.4) 69 (33.0) 47 (31.5) 0.86
 Argon plasma coagulation 52 (14.5) 34 (16.3) 18 (12.1) 0.34
 Heat-probe 3 (0.8) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.3) 0.77
 Band ligation 10 (2.8) 6 (2.9) 4 (2.7) >0.99
 Injectiona) 7 (2.0) 5 (2.4) 2 (1.3) 0.75
 Combination 15 (4.2) 11 (5.3) 4 (2.7) 0.35
 No hemostasis 180 (50.3) 101 (48.3) 79 (53.0) 0.44
Success of hemostasis 162/178 99/108 61/70 0.47

Values are presented as number (%).

a)Injection included epinephrine injection or fibroglue injection.

Table 3.
Bleeding scores and clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer bleeding according to the presence of sarcopenia
Variables Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
Bleeding scores
 Pre-Rockall score 3.8±1.8 3.4±1.8 4.3±1.6 <0.001
 Post-Rockall score 5.0±2.0 4.7±2.0 5.4±2.0 <0.001
 GBS 11.3±4.4 10.7±4.6 12.1±4.0 0.003
 AIMS65 score 2.3±0.9 2.3±0.8 2.4±0.9 0.20
 ABC score 4.2±2.7 3.7±2.6 5.0±2.7 <0.001
Rebleeding
 Within 7 days 20 (5.6) 15 (7.2) 5 (3.4) 0.19
 Within 30 days 33 (9.2) 22 (10.5) 11 (7.4) 0.41
Mortality
 Within 7 days 4 (1.1) 0 (0) 4 (2.7) 0.06
 Within 30 days 6 (1.7) 0 (0) 6 (4.0) 0.01
Rescue therapy 23 (6.4) 13 (6.2) 10 (6.7) >0.99
 TAE 22 (6.1) 13 (6.2) 9 (6.0) >0.99
 Surgery 1 (0.3) 0 (0) 1 (0.7) 0.87

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age old­er than 65 years; ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; TAE, transarterial visceral embolization.

Table 4.
Multivariate regression analysis of the factors associated with 30 days mortality
Model Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Standard beta t p Standard beta t p
Syncope or mental change 0.15 (0.05–0.25) 2.895 0.04
Inotropics 0.25 (0.15–0.35) 4.923 <0.001 0.12 (0.01–0.22) 2.249 0.03
INR prolongation 0.05 (–0.06–0.15) 0.894 0.37
Liver cirrhosis –0.04 (–0.15–0.06) –0.812 0.42
Cardiac diseasea) 0.04 (–0.06–0.15) 0.813 0.42
Metastatic malignancy –0.02 (–0.13–0.08) –0.159 0.65
GBS >12 0.13 (0.02–0.23) 2.388 0.02
Rockall >6 0.12 (0.01–0.22) 2.197 0.03
AIMS65 >3 0.07 (–0.03–0.17) 1.332 0.18
ABC >10 0.39 (0.30–0.49) 8.064 < 0.001 0.34 (0.24–0.44) 6.554 <0.001
Forrest (Ia–IIa) –0.00 (–0.11–0.10) –0.069 0.95
Forrest (IIb–III) 0.00 (–0.10–0.11) 0.069 0.95
Rebleeding within 30 days –0.04 (–0.15–0.06) –0.786 0.43
Sarcopenia 0.15 (0.05–0.26) 2.953 0.003 0.10 (0.00–0.19) 2.005 0.046

INR, international normalized ratio; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin, international normalized ratio, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years; ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities.

a)Cardiac diseases included angina or heart failure.

  • 1. Kim KB, Yoon SM, Youn SJ. Endoscopy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Endosc 2014;47:315–319.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 2. van Leerdam ME, Vreeburg EM, Rauws EA, et al. Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993/1994 and 2000. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1494–1499.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Theocharis GJ, Thomopoulos KC, Sakellaropoulos G, et al. Changing trends in the epidemiology and clinical outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a defined geographical area in Greece. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42:128–133.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Czernichow P, Hochain P, Nousbaum JB, et al. Epidemiology and course of acute upper gastro-intestinal haemorrhage in four French geographical areas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;12:175–181.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Laine L, Yang H, Chang SC, et al. Trends for incidence of hospitalization and death due to GI complications in the United States from 2001 to 2009. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1190–1195.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 6. Kim JI, Kim SG, Kim N, et al. Changing prevalence of upper gastrointestinal disease in 28 893 Koreans from 1995 to 2005. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;21:787–793.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Papatheodoridis GV, Archimandritis AJ. Role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:3811–3816.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 8. Ramsay LE, Sanmuganathan PS, Wallis EJ, et al. Aspirin for primary prevention: treatment policy should be based on all trial evidence, not subgroup analysis. BMJ 2000;321:1472.ArticlePMC
  • 9. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Orav JE, Kanis JA, et al. Comparative performance of current definitions of sarcopenia against the prospective incidence of falls among community-dwelling seniors age 65 and older. Osteoporos Int 2015;26:2793–2802.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 10. Murray TÉ, Williams D, Lee MJ. Osteoporosis, obesity, and sarcopenia on abdominal CT: a review of epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and management strategies for the reporting radiologist. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:2376–2386.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 11. Pizzoferrato M, de Sire R, Ingravalle F, et al. Characterization of sarcopenia in an IBD population attending an Italian gastroenterology tertiary center. Nutrients 2019;11:2281.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Atkins JL, Whincup PH, Morris RW, et al. Sarcopenic obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a population-based cohort study of older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:253–260.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 13. Bellanti F, Romano AD, Lo Buglio A, et al. Oxidative stress is increased in sarcopenia and associated with cardiovascular disease risk in sarcopenic obesity. Maturitas 2018;109:6–12.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Yu JJ, Xu XF, Xing H, et al. Relationship between sarcopenic obesity and outcomes of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg 2018;268:e86–e87.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Kalafateli M, Karatzas A, Tsiaoussis G, et al. Muscle fat infiltration assessed by total psoas density on computed tomography predicts mortality in cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2018;31:491–498.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 16. Montano-Loza AJ. Clinical relevance of sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:8061–8071.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 17. Batsis JA, Mackenzie TA, Lopez-Jimenez F, et al. Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity, and functional impairments in older adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999-2004. Nutr Res 2015;35:1031–1039.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 18. Gadelha AB, Neri SG, Oliveira RJ, et al. Severity of sarcopenia is associated with postural balance and risk of falls in community-dwelling older women. Exp Aging Res 2018;44:258–269.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Sayer AA, Dennison EM, Syddall HE, et al. Type 2 diabetes, muscle strength, and impaired physical function: the tip of the iceberg? Diabetes Care 2005;28:2541–2542.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Boshier PR, Heneghan R, Markar SR, et al. Assessment of body composition and sarcopenia in patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 2018;31:doy047.Article
  • 21. Fedele D, De Francesco A, Riso S, et al. Obesity, malnutrition, and trace element deficiency in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview. Nutrition 2021;81:111016.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Carneiro IP, Mazurak VC, Prado CM. Clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2016;18:62.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 23. Choi YI, Chung JW, Park DK, et al. Sarcopenia is independently associated with an increased risk of peptic ulcer disease: a nationwide population-based study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2020;56:121.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 24. Stanley AJ, Ashley D, Dalton HR, et al. Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation. Lancet 2009;373:42–47.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet 2000;356:1318–1321.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Kim JS, Kim BW, Kim DH, et al. Guidelines for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Korean J Gastroenterol 2020;75:322–332.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, et al. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut 1996;38:316–321.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 28. Wang CY, Qin J, Wang J, et al. Rockall score in predicting outcomes of elderly patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:3466–3472.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 29. Cieniawski D, Kuźniar E, Winiarski M, et al. Prognostic value of the Rockall score in patients with acute nonvariceal bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract. Przegl Lek 2013;70:1–5.PubMed
  • 30. Laursen SB, Oakland K, Laine L, et al. ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study. Gut 2021;70:707–716.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Sakong H, Moon HS, Choi SW, et al. ABC score is an effective predictor of outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e31541.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Leontiadis GI, Sharma VK, Howden CW, et al. Proton pump inhibitor treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(1):CD002094.Article
  • 33. Kim TY, Kim MY, Sohn JH, et al. Sarcopenia as a useful predictor for long-term mortality in cirrhotic patients with ascites. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1253–1259.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 34. Benedek Z, Todor-Boér S, Kocsis L, et al. Psoas muscle index defined by computer tomography predicts the presence of postoperative complications in colorectal cancer surgery. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;57:472.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 35. Derstine BA, Holcombe SA, Goulson RL, et al. Quantifying sarcopenia reference values using lumbar and thoracic muscle areas in a healthy population. J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:180–185.ArticlePDF
  • 36. Lee HT, Lee AY, Seo JY. Risk assessment in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a comprehensive review of scoring systems. J Med Case Stud 2023;1:000104.Article
  • 37. Kim GH, Choi KD, Ko Y, et al. Impact of comorbidities, sarcopenia, and nutritional status on the long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in elderly patients aged ≥ 80 years. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:3598.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 38. Rodge GA, Goenka U, Jajodia S, et al. Psoas muscle index: a simple and reliable method of sarcopenia assessment on computed tomography scan in chronic liver disease and its impact on mortality. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2023;13:196–202.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Laine L, Barkun AN, Saltzman JR, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: upper gastrointestinal and ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:899–917.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Rosenstock SJ, Møller MH, Larsson H, et al. Improving quality of care in peptic ulcer bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 13,498 consecutive patients in the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1449–1457.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 41. Alley DE, Shardell MD, Peters KW, et al. Grip strength cutpoints for the identification of clinically relevant weakness. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:559–566.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:755–763.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. Chen LK, Liu LK, Woo J, et al. Sarcopenia in Asia: consensus report of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:95–101.ArticlePubMed
  • 44. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2019;48:16–31.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 45. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Torri L, et al. Sarcopenia: how to measure, when and why. Radiol Med 2022;127:228–237.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 46. Ibrahim K, May C, Patel HP, et al. A feasibility study of implementing grip strength measurement into routine hospital practice (GRImP): study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:27.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 47. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, et al. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 2011;40:423–429.ArticlePubMed
  • 48. Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice: assessment and management. BMC Geriatr 2016;16:170.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 49. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events: results from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:251–259.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 50. Galindo Martín CA, Monares Zepeda E, Lescas Méndez OA. Bedside ultrasound measurement of rectus femoris: a tutorial for the nutrition support clinician. J Nutr Metab 2017;2017:2767232.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 51. Hull H, He Q, Thornton J, et al. iDXA, Prodigy, and DPXL dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry whole-body scans: a cross-calibration study. J Clin Densitom 2009;12:95–102.ArticlePubMed
  • 52. Rossi AP, Fantin F, Micciolo R, et al. Identifying sarcopenia in acute care setting patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:303.Article

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Influence of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective single-center analysis in Korea
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      Related articles
      Influence of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective single-center analysis in Korea
      Image Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study. EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; GI, gastrointestinal; CT, computed tomography. a)Zenker’s diverticulum, feeding tube-induced mucosal injury, esophageal tuberculosis, esophageal ulcer bleeding, Boerhaave syndrome, and hemorrhagic gastritis.
      Fig. 2. Psoas muscle area—yellow color delineates the right and left psoas muscle with the respective areas. (A, B) Patient without sarcopenia (C, D) Patient with sarcopenia.
      Fig. 3. Number of patients experiencing rebleeding within 30 days, categorized based on Forrest classification and the presence of sarcopenia.
      Fig. 4. No. of patients with sarcopenia experiencing mortality within 30 days based on the bleeding score with optimal cut-off value. ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years.
      Fig. 5. receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) according to the bleeding scores. ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
      Graphical abstract
      Influence of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective single-center analysis in Korea
      Characteristic Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
      Sex (male/female) 233/125 143/66 90/59 0.14
      Age (yr) 66.8±16.3 62.6±16.4 72.6±14.2 <0.001
       ≥65 185 (51.7) 84 (40.2) 101 (67.8) <0.001
      Chief complaint
       Hematemesis 97 (27.0) 56 (26.9) 41 (27.7) 0.97
       Hematochezia 44 (12.3) 27 (12.9) 17 (11.4) 0.79
       Melena 237 (66.2) 147 (70.3) 90 (60.4) 0.07
       Anemia 11 (3.1) 6 (2.9) 5 (3.4) >0.99
       Othersa) 31 (10.1) 16 (7.7) 15 (10.1) 0.55
      Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 102.0±20.6 103.7±19.3 99.6±22.3 0.07
      Pulse rate (/min) 98.7±19.8 99.0±17.2 98.4±22.9 0.77
      Inotropic or vasopressor 20 (5.6) 6 (2.9) 14 (9.4) 0.02
      Syncope or mental change 72 (20.1) 38 (18.2) 34 (22.8) 0.35
      Laboratory finding
       Hemoglobin (g/dL) 8.7±2.9 9.0±3.0 8.2±2.6 0.01
       BUN (mg/dL) 45.2±25.3 44.2±24.6 46.5±26.1 0.39
       Creatine (mg/dL) 1.3±1.4 1.3±1.6 1.4±1.1 0.77
       Albumin (g/dL) 3.4±0.6 3.5±0.5 3.2±0.6 <0.001
       PT (INR) 1.2±0.4 1.2±0.4 1.2±0.3 0.32
        ≥1.5 26 (7.3) 11 (5.3) 15 (10.1) 0.13
      Underlying diseases
       HTN 189 (52.8) 108 (51.7) 81 (54.4) 0.69
       DM 95 (26.5) 55 (26.3) 40 (26.8) >0.99
       Liver cirrhosis 35 (9.8) 18 (8.6) 17 (11.4) 0.49
       Cardiac diseasesb) 72 (20.1) 36 (17.2) 36 (24.2) 0.14
       CVA 54 (15.1) 27 (12.9) 27 (18.1) 0.23
       CKD or ESRD 42 (11.8) 19 (9.1) 23 (15.5) 0.09
       Metastatic malignancy 12 (3.4) 6 (2.9) 6 (4.0) 0.76
      Medication
       Antiplatelet agent 113 (31.6) 68 (32.5) 45 (30.2) 0.72
       Anticoagulant 10 (2.8) 4 (1.9) 6 (4.0) 0.38
       NOAC 14 (3.9) 3 (1.4) 11 (7.4) 0.01
       NSAIDs 57 (15.9) 30 (14.4) 27 (18.1) 0.42
      Helicobacter pylori 153 (59.3) 97 (61.4) 56 (56.0) 0.47
      ASA class 0.02
       Ⅰ 17 (4.7) 13 (6.2) 4 (2.7)
       Ⅱ 97 (27.1) 66 (31.6) 31 (20.8)
       Ⅲ 230 (64.2) 125 (59.8) 105 (70.5)
       Ⅳ 14 (3.9) 5 (2.4) 9 (6.0)
      Characteristics Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
      Location of ulcer
       Fundus or cardia 22 (6.1) 14 (6.7) 8 (5.4) 0.77
       Body 131 (36.6) 60 (28.7) 71 (47.7) <0.001
       Antrum 131 (36.6) 72 (34.4) 59 (39.6) 0.38
       Duodenal bulb 112 (31.3) 81 (38.8) 31 (20.8) <0.001
       Duodenal 2nd portion 17 (4.7) 10 (4.8) 7 (4.7) >0.99
      Main location <0.001
       Stomach 248 (69.3) 128 (61.2) 120 (80.5)
       Duodenum 110 (30.7) 81 (38.8) 29 (19.5)
      Forrest classification
       Ia 13 (3.6) 6 (2.9) 7 (4.7) 0.53
       Ib 46 (12.8) 29 (13.9) 17 (11.4) 0.60
       IIa 125 (34.9) 81 (38.8) 44 (29.5) 0.09
       IIb 32 (8.9) 13 (6.2) 19 (12.8) 0.05
       IIc 46 (12.8) 24 (11.5) 22 (14.8) 0.45
       III 96 (26.8) 56 (26.8) 40 (26.8) >0.99
      Size of ulcer (cm) 0.11
       ≥1 cm 162 (45.3) 98 (46.9) 64 (43.0)
       <1 cm 87 (24.3) 56 (26.8) 31 (20.8)
      Methods of hemostasis
       Clipping 116 (32.4) 69 (33.0) 47 (31.5) 0.86
       Argon plasma coagulation 52 (14.5) 34 (16.3) 18 (12.1) 0.34
       Heat-probe 3 (0.8) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.3) 0.77
       Band ligation 10 (2.8) 6 (2.9) 4 (2.7) >0.99
       Injectiona) 7 (2.0) 5 (2.4) 2 (1.3) 0.75
       Combination 15 (4.2) 11 (5.3) 4 (2.7) 0.35
       No hemostasis 180 (50.3) 101 (48.3) 79 (53.0) 0.44
      Success of hemostasis 162/178 99/108 61/70 0.47
      Variables Patients (n=358) Patients without sarcopenia (n=209) Patients with sarcopenia (n=149) p-value
      Bleeding scores
       Pre-Rockall score 3.8±1.8 3.4±1.8 4.3±1.6 <0.001
       Post-Rockall score 5.0±2.0 4.7±2.0 5.4±2.0 <0.001
       GBS 11.3±4.4 10.7±4.6 12.1±4.0 0.003
       AIMS65 score 2.3±0.9 2.3±0.8 2.4±0.9 0.20
       ABC score 4.2±2.7 3.7±2.6 5.0±2.7 <0.001
      Rebleeding
       Within 7 days 20 (5.6) 15 (7.2) 5 (3.4) 0.19
       Within 30 days 33 (9.2) 22 (10.5) 11 (7.4) 0.41
      Mortality
       Within 7 days 4 (1.1) 0 (0) 4 (2.7) 0.06
       Within 30 days 6 (1.7) 0 (0) 6 (4.0) 0.01
      Rescue therapy 23 (6.4) 13 (6.2) 10 (6.7) >0.99
       TAE 22 (6.1) 13 (6.2) 9 (6.0) >0.99
       Surgery 1 (0.3) 0 (0) 1 (0.7) 0.87
      Model Univariate analysis
      Multivariate analysis
      Standard beta t p Standard beta t p
      Syncope or mental change 0.15 (0.05–0.25) 2.895 0.04
      Inotropics 0.25 (0.15–0.35) 4.923 <0.001 0.12 (0.01–0.22) 2.249 0.03
      INR prolongation 0.05 (–0.06–0.15) 0.894 0.37
      Liver cirrhosis –0.04 (–0.15–0.06) –0.812 0.42
      Cardiac diseasea) 0.04 (–0.06–0.15) 0.813 0.42
      Metastatic malignancy –0.02 (–0.13–0.08) –0.159 0.65
      GBS >12 0.13 (0.02–0.23) 2.388 0.02
      Rockall >6 0.12 (0.01–0.22) 2.197 0.03
      AIMS65 >3 0.07 (–0.03–0.17) 1.332 0.18
      ABC >10 0.39 (0.30–0.49) 8.064 < 0.001 0.34 (0.24–0.44) 6.554 <0.001
      Forrest (Ia–IIa) –0.00 (–0.11–0.10) –0.069 0.95
      Forrest (IIb–III) 0.00 (–0.10–0.11) 0.069 0.95
      Rebleeding within 30 days –0.04 (–0.15–0.06) –0.786 0.43
      Sarcopenia 0.15 (0.05–0.26) 2.953 0.003 0.10 (0.00–0.19) 2.005 0.046
      Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding categorized by the presence of sarcopenia

      Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

      BUN, blood urea nitrogen; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; HTN, hypertension; DM, diabetes mellitus; CVA, cerebrovascular accidences; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ESRD, end-stage renal disease. NOAC, new oral anticoagulants; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

      Others included Levin tube clot, chest pain, dyspnea, abdominal pain or vomiting.

      Cardiac diseases included angina or heart failure.

      Table 2. Endoscopic finding and methods of hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding categorized by the presence of sarcopenia

      Values are presented as number (%).

      Injection included epinephrine injection or fibroglue injection.

      Table 3. Bleeding scores and clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer bleeding according to the presence of sarcopenia

      Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

      GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin level, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age old­er than 65 years; ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities; TAE, transarterial visceral embolization.

      Table 4. Multivariate regression analysis of the factors associated with 30 days mortality

      INR, international normalized ratio; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score; AIMS65, albumin, international normalized ratio, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age older than 65 years; ABC, age, blood test, and comorbidities.

      Cardiac diseases included angina or heart failure.


      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      Close layer
      TOP