Differentiating Upper vs. Lower GI Bleeding at the Bedside: The Art and Science of Nasogastric Lavage

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding remains a common medical emergency requiring rapid diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. While endoscopy represents the definitive diagnostic modality, bedside clinical assessment combining careful history-taking with properly performed nasogastric (NG) tube lavage provides crucial early information for risk stratification, triage decisions, and endoscopic preparation. This review explores the underutilized yet invaluable technique of NG lavage, detailing its proper execution, interpretation nuances, and integration with clinical parameters to differentiate upper from lower GI bleeding sources before endoscopy.

Introduction

Gastrointestinal bleeding accounts for over 300,000 hospital admissions annually in the United States, with mortality rates ranging from 2-15% depending on the bleeding source and patient comorbidities.[1,2] The anatomic distinction between upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), defined as hemorrhage proximal to the ligament of Treitz, and lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), originating distal to this landmark, carries significant implications for management algorithms, specialist consultation, timing of intervention, and prognosis.

Despite advances in endoscopic technology, the bedside clinical evaluation remains the foundation of initial assessment. The nasogastric tube, introduced into clinical practice in the 1920s, continues to offer diagnostic and therapeutic value that extends far beyond simple gastric decompression.[3] However, the technique of NG lavage is frequently performed incorrectly or interpreted inappropriately, limiting its clinical utility. This review aims to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to NG lavage in the context of acute GI bleeding.

The Clinical History: First Line of Differentiation

Before discussing NG lavage technique, the astute clinician must recognize that history-taking provides powerful discriminatory information.

Symptoms Suggesting Upper GI Source

Hematemesis (vomiting of blood) is pathognomonic for UGIB, with bright red blood indicating brisk bleeding and "coffee ground" emesis suggesting slower bleeding with acid conversion of hemoglobin to hematin.[4] The absence of hematemesis, however, does not exclude UGIB—only 40-50% of patients with proven UGIB present with this symptom.[5]

Melena (black, tarry, foul-smelling stool) typically indicates UGIB, as blood must remain in the GI tract for at least 8-14 hours to undergo bacterial degradation and hemoglobin oxidation.[6] However, melena can occur with right colonic or small bowel bleeding if transit time is sufficiently slow. Conversely, massive UGIB with rapid transit may present as hematochezia (bright red blood per rectum).

Pearl: The "Red Rectum Rule"

Hematochezia typically indicates LGIB, but remember: approximately 10-15% of patients presenting with brisk hematochezia have an upper GI source, particularly when associated with hemodynamic instability.[7] A rapidly bleeding peptic ulcer or variceal hemorrhage can present with red blood per rectum if transit time is accelerated by the cathartic effect of blood.

Additional Historical Clues

Medication history is crucial: NSAIDs, anticoagulants, and antiplatelet agents increase bleeding risk from any source but particularly peptic ulcer disease. A history of liver disease or alcohol abuse suggests variceal bleeding. Prior aortic surgery should raise suspicion for aortoenteric fistula, a rare but catastrophic cause of UGIB.[8]

Dyspepsia, epigastric pain, or GERD symptoms point toward UGIB, while abdominal cramping, change in bowel habits, or weight loss may suggest lower tract pathology including malignancy or inflammatory bowel disease.

The BUN:Creatinine Ratio: A Biochemical Clue

An elegant but often overlooked diagnostic adjunct is the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine (Cr) ratio. A ratio greater than 30:1 (or >36:1 by some definitions) in the absence of prerenal azotemia suggests UGIB with sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 27%.[9,10]

Oyster: Understanding the Mechanism

Blood is a protein-rich substrate. When blood enters the upper GI tract, it undergoes proteolysis by gastric acid and pancreatic enzymes. The resulting amino acids are absorbed in the small intestine and metabolized in the liver, generating urea. Meanwhile, creatinine production remains constant and related to muscle mass. This selective elevation of BUN creates the diagnostic ratio.[11]

Clinical Hack: The BUN:Cr ratio is most useful when:

• The ratio is calculated within 24 hours of presentation
• The patient has normal renal function at baseline
• There's no evidence of severe dehydration or catabolism
• The patient isn't on corticosteroids (which increase protein catabolism)

A normal BUN:Cr ratio doesn't exclude UGIB but makes it less likely, especially when combined with other clinical parameters.

Nasogastric Lavage: Technique and Interpretation

Step 1: Selecting the Appropriate Tube

The most common error in NG lavage is using a tube that's too small. Standard 14F Salem sump tubes are inadequate for evaluating GI bleeding. A large-bore tube (16-18F, sometimes called an Ewald or lavage tube) is essential.[12]

Why size matters: Clotted blood won't pass through small-caliber tubes, creating false-negative results. Additionally, large-bore tubes allow for effective therapeutic lavage, clearing the stomach of clots and improving subsequent endoscopic visualization.

Step 2: Proper Tube Placement

Insert the tube nasally to a depth of 55-60 cm in average-sized adults, ensuring gastric positioning. Confirm placement by:

1. Aspirating gastric contents
2. Auscultating air insufflation over the epigastrium
3. Checking pH of aspirate (should be <5 in most patients)

Pearl: If you're unable to pass the tube nasally due to trauma, coagulopathy, or patient anatomy, orogastric placement is equally effective for diagnostic purposes.

Step 3: The Lavage Procedure

1. Initial Aspiration: Before instilling fluid, attempt to aspirate gastric contents. The character of this initial aspirate is often the most diagnostically useful.

2. Fluid Selection: Use 300-500 mL aliquots of room-temperature water or normal saline. Avoid ice-cold solutions—despite historical teaching, they don't improve hemostasis and may induce hypothermia or discomfort.[13]

3. Instillation and Drainage: Instill fluid via the NG tube using a catheter-tip syringe or funnel. Allow passive drainage by gravity or gentle suction. Avoid forceful suction, which can traumatize gastric mucosa and create artifactual bleeding.

4. Repeated Cycles: Perform 3-5 cycles of lavage until you can adequately characterize the return. The goal isn't necessarily to achieve completely clear return, but to determine whether active bleeding is present.

Step 4: Interpreting the Return

The interpretation of NG lavage is nuanced and requires understanding both its capabilities and limitations.

Frankly Bloody Return

Interpretation: Confirms active or recent UGIB with high specificity (>95%).[14] The bleeding source is proximal to the ligament of Treitz and likely requires urgent endoscopy.

Prognostic Significance: Frank blood that persists through multiple lavage cycles indicates ongoing hemorrhage and identifies a higher-risk cohort. These patients should be considered for urgent/emergent endoscopy within 2-12 hours.[15]

"Coffee Ground" Material

Interpretation: Indicates UGIB where hemoglobin has been converted to hematin by gastric acid. This suggests bleeding has slowed or stopped, as fresh blood isn't actively entering the stomach.

Clinical Significance: These patients generally have lower acuity than those with frank blood, but still require endoscopy, typically within 24 hours.

Clear, Bilious Return

Interpretation: This is the trickiest scenario. Bile in the gastric aspirate confirms the NG tube has sampled beyond the pylorus. Clear, bilious return suggests either:

• Bleeding has stopped (in the case of UGIB)
• The source is distal to the ligament of Treitz (LGIB)
• No significant bleeding is occurring

Sensitivity Caveat: NG lavage has a sensitivity of only 42-84% for UGIB, meaning negative lavage doesn't exclude upper GI bleeding.[16,17] A bleeding site in the duodenum (distal to the pylorus) may not reflux blood into the stomach, particularly if the pylorus is closed or competent.

Hack: The presence of bile is crucial. If you obtain clear fluid but NO bile, the result is truly inconclusive—you may not have adequately sampled duodenal content, and a duodenal bleeding source cannot be excluded.

Non-Bilious, Non-Bloody Return

Interpretation: Inconclusive. This scenario occurs in approximately 15-20% of NG lavages.[18] The absence of both blood and bile suggests:

• The tube may not be optimally positioned
• A duodenal source hasn't refluxed blood proximally
• Bleeding has stopped completely
• A lower GI source is present

Clinical Response: These patients require risk stratification using clinical scores (Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall) and should not have UGIB excluded based on NG lavage alone.

Step 5: Therapeutic Benefit of Lavage

Beyond diagnosis, NG lavage serves important therapeutic functions:

1. Endoscopic Preparation: Clearing the stomach of blood, clots, and food debris significantly improves endoscopic visualization and therapeutic success rates.[19] Studies demonstrate that adequate gastric lavage reduces the need for repeat endoscopy and improves identification of bleeding sources.

2. Prognostic Indicator: Serial lavage can provide dynamic information. A bloody lavage that clears to bile-stained fluid through successive cycles is a favorable prognostic sign, suggesting bleeding has ceased or slowed substantially. These patients have lower rates of rebleeding and may be candidates for delayed endoscopy in stable presentations.[20]

3. Preparation for Prokinetic Agents: Before administering erythromycin (250 mg IV) or metoclopramide as prokinetic agents to prepare for endoscopy, lavage removes particulate matter that might otherwise complicate the procedure.

Integrating NG Lavage into Clinical Decision-Making

Risk Stratification Scores

The Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and Rockall Score incorporate clinical and laboratory parameters to predict outcomes in UGIB. While these scores don't explicitly include NG lavage results, the information gained from lavage should inform score interpretation and management decisions.[21]

Pearl: A GBS of 0-1 identifies very low-risk patients who may be candidates for outpatient management. However, clinical judgment incorporating NG lavage findings should override score-based decisions in ambiguous cases.

When NOT to Place an NG Tube

Despite its utility, NG lavage is not universally indicated:

1. Severe coagulopathy or thrombocytopenia (platelets <50,000/μL) increases risk of epistaxis and nasopharyngeal trauma
2. Suspected esophageal varices (relative contraindication—tube placement won't precipitate bleeding, but lavage should be gentle)
3. Recent nasopharyngeal surgery or basilar skull fracture
4. Patient refusal or inability to cooperate
5. Clinically obvious UGIB (hematemesis) where the diagnosis is certain and endoscopy is already planned urgently

Oyster: The teaching that NG tubes are contraindicated in variceal bleeding is largely myth. While historical concerns existed about tube-induced variceal trauma, multiple studies demonstrate that appropriately placed NG tubes don't increase variceal bleeding risk and provide valuable diagnostic/therapeutic information.[22]

The Algorithm: Putting It All Together

For suspected GI bleeding:

1. Initial Assessment: Hemodynamic status, history (hematemesis, melena, hematochezia), medications, comorbidities
2. Laboratory Studies: CBC, coagulation parameters, BUN/Cr, type and screen
3. Calculate BUN:Cr Ratio: >30:1 suggests UGIB
4. Clinical Triage:
   • Hematemesis + hemodynamic instability = URGENT endoscopy (NG lavage may be omitted)
   • Other presentations = Consider NG lavage for localization and risk stratification
5. Perform NG Lavage (if appropriate):
   • Bloody or coffee ground return = Confirm UGIB, proceed to endoscopy
   • Clear bilious return = Consider LGIB vs. stopped UGIB; use clinical scores and trends
   • Non-bilious, non-bloody return = Inconclusive; don't exclude UGIB
6. Definitive Evaluation: Endoscopy (EGD and/or colonoscopy) based on clinical presentation and lavage findings

Future Directions and Limitations

The role of NG lavage continues to evolve. Proponents argue it provides valuable bedside information at minimal cost and risk. Critics note its imperfect sensitivity and the increasing availability of urgent endoscopy, potentially rendering NG lavage obsolete.[23]

Emerging Considerations:

• Point-of-care ultrasound may eventually identify gastric blood non-invasively
• Video capsule endoscopy allows visualization of the entire GI tract in stable patients
• Computed tomography angiography (CTA) can identify active bleeding sources when endoscopy is non-diagnostic

Despite technological advances, NG lavage remains a practical, low-cost bedside tool that provides immediate diagnostic and therapeutic information when performed correctly.

Conclusion

The differentiation of upper from lower GI bleeding begins at the bedside with careful history-taking, physical examination, and judicious use of the nasogastric tube. NG lavage, when performed with proper technique using large-bore tubes and interpreted with understanding of its limitations, provides valuable information for risk stratification, triage, and endoscopic preparation. The key principles are:

1. Use large-bore (16-18F) tubes
2. Lavage with adequate volumes (300-500 mL aliquots)
3. Interpret results in context: bloody/coffee ground confirms UGIB; bilious clear suggests stopped bleeding or LGIB; non-bilious clear is inconclusive
4. Integrate with BUN:Cr ratio and clinical parameters
5. Recognize therapeutic benefits for endoscopic preparation and prognostication
6. Never exclude UGIB based solely on negative NG lavage

For the internist managing acute GI bleeding, mastery of this bedside technique remains an essential skill in the modern era of evidence-based medicine.

References

1. Laine L, Yang H, Chang SC, Datto C. Trends for incidence of hospitalization and death due to GI complications in the United States from 2001 to 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(8):1190-1195.

2. Hearnshaw SA, Logan RF, Lowe D, et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut. 2011;60(10):1327-1335.

3. Levin A, Wyman T. The visceral tube for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroduodenal diseases. JAMA. 1921;76(24):1565-1568.

4. Palmer K. Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Br Med Bull. 2007;83:307-324.

5. Gralnek IM, Dumonceau JM, Kuipers EJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47(10):a1-46.

6. Zuckerman GR, Prakash C. Acute lower intestinal bleeding: part I: clinical presentation and diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48(6):606-617.

7. Jensen DM, Machicado GA. Diagnosis and treatment of severe hematochezia. The role of urgent colonoscopy after purge. Gastroenterology. 1988;95(6):1569-1574.

8. Vu QD, Menias CO, Bhalla S, et al. Aortoenteric fistulas: CT features and potential mimics. Radiographics. 2009;29(1):197-209.

9. Srygley FD, Gerardo CJ, Tran T, Fisher DA. Does this patient have a severe upper gastrointestinal bleed? JAMA. 2012;307(10):1072-1079.

10. Witting MD, Magder L, Heins AE, et al. ED predictors of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in patients without hematemesis. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24(3):280-285.

11. Ernst AA, Haynes ML, Nick TG, Weiss SJ. Usefulness of the blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio in gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17(1):70-72.

12. Cappell MS, Friedel D. Initial management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: from initial evaluation up to gastrointestinal endoscopy. Med Clin North Am. 2008;92(3):491-509.

13. Guth PH. Current concepts in gastric microcirculatory pathophysiology. Yale J Biol Med. 1992;65(6):677-688.

14. Aljebreen AM, Fallone CA, Barkun AN. Nasogastric aspirate predicts high-risk endoscopic lesions in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(2):172-178.

15. Hwang JH, Fisher DA, Ben-Menachem T, et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(6):1132-1138.

16. Palamidessi N, Sinert R, Falzon L, Zehtabchi S. Nasogastric aspiration and lavage in emergency department patients with hematochezia or melena without hematemesis. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(2):126-132.

17. Witting MD, Magder L, Heins AE, et al. Usefulness and validity of diagnostic nasogastric aspiration in patients without hematemesis. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(4):525-532.

18. Cuellar RE, Gavaler JS, Alexander JA, et al. Gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage. The value of a nasogastric aspirate. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150(7):1381-1384.

19. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Kuipers EJ, et al. International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(2):101-113.

20. Huang ES, Karsan S, Kanwal F, et al. Impact of nasogastric lavage on outcomes in acute GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(5):971-980.

21. Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, et al. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6432.

22. Chung IK, Kim EJ, Hwang KY, et al. Evaluation of endoscopic hemostasis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding related to Mallory-Weiss syndrome. Endoscopy. 2002;34(6):474-479.

23. Laine L, Jensen DM. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(3):345-360.