Comparing Primary and Secondary Outcomes:
We compared the outcomes between
ESRD with LGIB vs. ESRD groups. Table 3 shows the proportion of primary
and secondary outcomes in both groups. In the unmatched cohort, there
was a statistically significant difference observed with the in-hospital
mortality (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.3; P=0.00). After propensity score
matching, the results are consistent as there was a statistically
significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between the two
groups (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5-2.2; P=0.00). (Table 3)
In the unmatched cohort, there were higher odds of sepsis (OR 1.4, 95%
CI 1.4-1.5; P=0.00), acute respiratory failure (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5-1.7;
P=0.00), mechanical ventilation (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.8-1.9; P=0.00), shock
requiring vasopressor (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.8-2.1; P=0.00), DIC (OR 2.9,
95% CI 4.4-5.5; P=0.00), and acute coronary syndrome (OR 1.6, 95% CI
1.5-1.6; P=0.00), in the ESRD with LGIB group compared to the ESRD
group. After matching the cohorts, there were higher odds of mechanical
ventilation (OR 1.4, 95% CI 6.04-16.4; P=0.00), shock requiring
vasopressor, and blood transfusion (OR 9.6, 95% CI 2.3-4.0; P=0.002).
There was no difference observed with the other complications, including
sepsis, acute coronary syndrome, and acute respiratory failure. (Table
3)