Acute small bowel bleeding: a distinct entity with significantly different economic implications compared with GI bleeding from other locations
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 27, 2026
Flexible Colonoscopy in Mice to Evaluate the Severity of Colitis and Colorectal Tumors Using a Validated Endoscopic Scoring System
Published on: October 17, 2013
Chandra Prakash1, Gary R Zuckerman
1Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Background:
Historically, acute lower intestinal bleeding has incorporated small bowel with colonic sources. This potentially obscures the unique characteristics of small bowel bleeding, which are eclipsed by the attributes of the much more common colonic bleeding. Separating acute lower intestinal bleeding into small bowel and colonic sources may delineate characteristics of each, thereby making it possible to determine whether clinical outcomes vary by anatomic level of bleeding.
Methods:
A total of 29 consecutive patients (15 women, 14 men; age 68.6 +/-2.4 years) with acute small bowel bleeding were compared with two other groups, each with 29 consecutive patients, with either acute colonic bleeding or acute upper GI bleeding. Clinical presentation, outcomes, and resource utilization for small bowel bleeding were compared with similar parameters for acute colonic bleeding and upper GI bleeding.
Results:
Although the clinical presentation did not always distinguish the 3 groups, resource utilization was significantly higher in the small bowel bleeding group. The latter group required a higher number of diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001) and blood transfusions (p < 0.001), remained in hospital longer (p < 0.05), and had a higher cost of hospitalization (p < 0.001) compared with the colonic bleeding and upper GI bleeding groups. The mortality rate for patients with small bowel bleeding was 10%. Although none of the patients with upper GI bleeding and only 14% of those with colonic bleeding required greater than 3 diagnostic procedures, 79% of patients with small bowel bleeding required 4 procedures for diagnostic localization (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions:
Small bowel bleeding ("mid-intestinal bleeding") is a distinct clinical entity with significantly worse outcomes compared with colonic bleeding and upper GI bleeding. The focus of the investigation should be directed to the small bowel, with enteroscopy or capsule endoscopy, when 3 investigative procedures fail to localize recurrent overt GI bleeding.
Related Concept Videos
01:17Chronic Bowel Disorders: Introduction
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder affecting the gastrointestinal tract. The distinctive feature is recurrent abdominal pain associated with altered bowel movements, manifesting as constipation, diarrhea, or fluctuating between both. The...
01:24Esophageal Varices-I: Introduction
01:28Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol abuse, or...
01:27Inflammatory Bowel Disease I: Ulcerative Colitis
Inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, encompasses a group of disorders characterized by chronic inflammation or ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract.
Risk Factors
The exact cause of IBD remains unclear, although it is believed to be due to a mix of genetic, environmental, microbial, and immune factors. Genetic factors are significant in determining susceptibility to IBD, with family history being a critical risk factor. Individuals with a first-degree relative who has IBD are at...
01:26Inflammatory Bowel Disease I: Introduction
01:20Inflammatory Bowel Disease IV: Clinical Manifestations