Why the study?
The combination of acute coronary syndrome with gastrointestinal bleeding presents high mortality, yet clear recommendations and uniform management principles are lacking.
This review highlights the severe prognostic impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in ACS patients and discusses management strategies including endoscopic hemostasis, embolization, and DAPT discontinuation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ACS with GIB poses acute management dilemmas; leaves open evidence-based protocols for this high-risk overlap.
Currently, diseases of the circulatory system are the leading cause of death. A particular problem of a modern multidisciplinary hospital is the combination of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), since it is characterized by a syndrome of mutual burdening and mutually exclusive approaches to treatment. The development of GIB in patients with ACS increases the mortality rate of patients to 50-80%. Despite the practical importance of this problem, today there are no clear recommendations and uniform principles for managing patients with such a unique scenario. The review describes in detail the reasons for the development of GIB in patients with ACS, discusses the mechanisms of action of drugs used in ACS and their importance in the development of GIB. It was found that the incidence of GIB in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions reaches 4%, and the risk of re-bleeding doubles. The options for the treatment of GIB are considered: the role of endoscopic and drug hemostasis, as well as X-ray endovascular embolization of the gastric arteries, is shown as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgical intervention. Indications for discotinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy based on an objective assessment of the severity of bleeding have been formulated. Much attention is paid to the issue of prevention of GIB in patients with ACS. Risk factors for hemorrhagic complications were considered, and the risk assessment of possible GIB using the BARC scale was shown.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Otdelnov et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: