A prospective, randomized trial of large- versus small-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine for peptic ulcer bleeding

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second haemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing endoscopic treatment: epinephrine alone versus epinephrine associated with a second haemostatic method in adults with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by the Forrest classification. Bleeding must have been confirmed by endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 1763 people were included. Adding a second procedure reduced further bleeding rate from 18.8% to 10.4%; Peto Odds Ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.66, and emergency surgery from 10.8% to 7.1%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89. Mortality fell from 5% to 2.5% OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82. Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is an important condition facing gastroenterologists. The focus of this article is the management of NVUGIB, with a particular emphasis on the endoscopic modalities and techniques that are most effective for various bleeding etiologies. Attention also is given to medical management, risk assessment, and issues pertaining to the timing of endoscopy and need for scheduled second-look endoscopy.

Clinical practice and evidence in endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic gastroduodenal ulcer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate treatment practice in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) caused by gastroduodenal ulcer and how it adheres to the best evidence as documented in randomized studies and meta-analyses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The literature was surveyed to identify appropriate practices, and a structured multiple choice questionnaire developed and mailed to all departments in Denmark treating UGIB.

RESULTS

All 42 departments responded. All had therapeutic gastroscopes and equipment necessary for endoscopic haemostasis; 90% of departments had written guidelines. Adjuvant pharmacologic treatment included tranexamic acid in 38%. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) were used by all departments, with 29% starting prior to endoscopic treatment. Eight departments (19%) used continuous PPI infusion, three of them starting with a bolus dose. In 50% of departments an anaesthesiologist was always present regardless of whether endotracheal intubation (routinely used by 10%) was used or not. Ten percent did not treat Forrest IIa and IIb ulcers, while IIc ulcers were treated by 36%. In 10% of departments clots were never removed, while in 2/3 attempts were made to remove resistant clots by mechanic means. Seven departments (17%) used monotherapy with epinephrine, while 59% always used dual therapy; 19% injected less than 10 ml. In rebleeding, 92% attempted endoscopic treatment before surgery, and used epinephrine in 79% of cases, while the remainder used epinephrine or polidocanol at the discretion of the endoscopist. Two out of three departments used high-dependency or intensive-care units for surveillance. Seventeen percent applied scheduled second-look gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice is variable, even in areas with established evidence based on randomized controlled studies, such as dosage and way of administration and duration of PPI treatment, injection treatment used as monotherapy and the volume used, including ulcers with clots for treatment, and the use of scheduled second-look endoscopy. Since the rebleeding rate has remained unchanged for decades, and rebleeding implies increased surgery and mortality rates, appropriate practices must be promoted in order to improve results. Development and implementation of national guidelines may facilitate the process.

Non-surgical approach to bleeding gastric ulcer

Bleeding gastric ulcers is a common reason for emergency upper endoscopy in Emergency Center of Clinical Center of Serbia. Randomized controlled trials have shown that endoscopic hemostasis is beneficial for patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer. Aim of this study was to analyze the frequency, etiological factors and localization of bleeding gastric ulcer. At the same time we were evaluated a degree of bleeding activity according to Forrest?s classification and modality of performed endoscopic hemostasis. All patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy for bleeding gastric ulcer in Emergency Center (January 2001.- December 2005.) were identified from an endoscopy database and the clinical records were reviewed retrospectivel. A total of 3954 patients underwent UGI endoscopy for presumed acute UGI hemorrhage. More than thirty % of them(31,1)- 1230 had an endoscopic diagnosis of bleeding gastric ulcer. We observed 1230 bleeding patients (60 % male and 40 % female) with a mean age of 64,3. The commonest localization of bleeding gastric ulcers was antrum (54 - 15%). Percentage of patients who received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or salicilates before bleeding was 54, 6%. The main symptom was melaena, which was observed in 82, 44% of patients with bleeding gastric ulcer. According to Forrest?s classification of bleeding activity, the most of patients had F IB and F III degree (23, 41% and 22, 76%). Injection endoscopic hemostasis was performed in 26,34% patients, which had active bleeding (F IA, F IB) Hemostasis was initially obtained in 96% of bleeding patients. Bleeding gastric ulcer is one of the commonest endoscopic diagnosis in Emergency Center of Clinical Center of Serbia. The most frequent etiology factor was no - steroid antinflamatory drugs and/or salicilates. Injection endoscopic hemostasis is a safe procedure with a low cost, and, if successful, substantially reduces the need for emergency surgery.

A novel method of treating colonic angiodysplasia

BACKGROUND

Colonic angiodysplasia is responsible for up to a third of lower-GI bleeding cases. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is a recognized treatment modality, but active bleeding decreases the ablative efficacy of APC by dissipation of the energy. APC has been associated with colonic perforation.

OBJECTIVES

We propose a novel and safe method for the treatment of colonic angiodysplasia by a submucosal injection of a saline epinephrine solution followed by the application of APC.

PATIENTS

Three patients with a total of 10 colonic angiodysplasias were treated with this injection-APC method.

INTERVENTIONS

Saline adrenaline solution (1:200,000) 2 to 3 mL was injected beneath the angiodysplasia before application of APC. APC 50 W and gas flow 2 L were applied onto the vascular lesion until the sufficient thermal effect was observed.

RESULTS

There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This new injection-APC method was safe for the treatment of colonic angiodysplasia. This may be useful in treating right-sided colonic lesions where the risks of perforation are greater than for the rest of the colon.

[Endoscopic diagnosis and therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding]

Gastrointestinal bleeding is still one of the most frequent medical emergencies. Despite improvements in endoscopic diagnosis and therapy, mortality from bleeding is still high (15%). Since conclusive trials are lacking, the endoscopist often has to rely on personal experience in the selection of therapeutic options. Therefore this article gives an overview of new publications in this field and recommendations based on personal experience.

Optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

AIM: To define the optimal injection volume of epinephrine with high efficacy for hemostasis and low complication rate in patients with actively bleeding ulcers.

METHODS: This prospective, randomized, comparative trial was conducted in a medical center. A total of 228 patients with actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) were randomly assigned to three groups with 20, 30 and 40 mL endoscopic injections of an 1:10 000 solution of epinephrine. The hemostatic effects and clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in all background variables between the three groups. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 97.4%, 98.7% and 100% of patients respectively in the 20, 30 and 40 mL epinephrine groups. There were no significant differences in the rate of initial hemostasis between the three groups. The rate of peptic ulcer perforation was significantly higher in the 40 mL epinephrine group than in the 20 and 30 mL epinephrine groups (P < 0.05). The rate of recurrent bleeding was significantly higher in the 20 mL epinephrine group (20.3%) than in the 30 (5.3%) and 40 mL (2.8 %) epinephrine groups (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the rates of surgical intervention, the amount of transfusion requirements, the days of hospitalization, the deaths from bleeding and 30 d mortality between the three groups. The number of patients who developed epigastric pain due to endoscopic injection, was significantly higher in the 40 mL epinephrine group (51/76) than in the 20 (2/76) and 30 mL (5/76) epinephrine groups (P < 0.001). Significant elevation of systolic blood pressure after endoscopic injection was observed in the 40 mL epinephrine group (P < 0.01). Significant decreasing and normalization of pulse rates after endoscopic injections were observed in the 20 mL and 30 mL epinephrine groups (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Injection of 30 mL diluted epinephrine (1:10 000) can effectively prevent recurrent bleeding with a low rate of complications. The optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic treatment of an actively bleeding ulcer (spurting or oozing) is 30 mL.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of bleeding ulcer patients receiving endoscopic epinephrine injection therapy. It remains unclear whether addition of a secondary clip therapy following epinephrine injection may reduce the rebleeding rate of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

One hundred five bleeding ulcer patients with active spurting, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots in ulcer bases.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic combination therapy (n = 52) or diluted epinephrine injection alone (n = 53).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis rates and recurrent bleeding rates.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 51 patients treated with combination therapy and 49 patients with epinephrine injection therapy (98% vs 92%, P = .18). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients in the combination therapy group and 11 patients in the epinephrine injection group (3.8% vs 21%, P = .008). Among the patients with rebleeding, repeated combination therapy was more effective than repeated injection therapy in achieving permanent hemostasis (100% vs 33%, P = .02). No patient required an emergency operation in the combination therapy group. However, 5 patients in the epinephrine injection group underwent emergency surgery to arrest bleeding (0% vs 9%, P = .023).

LIMITATIONS

Treatment outcome of endoscopic hemoclip therapy is related to the techniques of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic combination therapy is superior to epinephrine injection alone in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Role of intravenous omeprazole in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection: a prospective randomized comparative trial

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine injection is the most common endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding. Controversy exists concerning the optimal dose of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal dose of PPI after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

A total of 200 peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels (NBVV) who had obtained initial hemostasis with endoscopic injection of epinephrine were randomized to receive omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 6 h, omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 12 h or cimetidine (CIM) 400 mg infusion every 12 h. Outcomes were checked at 14 days after enrollment.

RESULTS

Rebleeding episodes were fewer in the group with omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 6 h (6/67, 9%) as compared with that of the CIM infusion group (22/67, 32.8%, p < 0.01). The volume of blood transfusion was less in the group with omeprazole 40 mg every 6 h than in those groups with omepraole 40 mg infusion every 12 h (p= 0.001) and CIM 400 mg infusion every 12 h (p < 0.001). The hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent operation, and death rate were not statistically different among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

A combination of endoscopic epinephrine injection and a large dose of omeprazole infusion is superior to combined endoscopic epinephrine injection with CIM infusion for preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers with active bleeding or NBVV.

Endoscopic Approaches to Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Treatment for most patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding has shifted from the operating room to the endoscopy suite. Endoscopic treatment has resulted in substantial benefit for patients with bleeding from peptic ulcer. Ulcers associated with high-risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) not treated endoscopically have 40 per cent to 100 per cent risk of continued or recurrent bleeding and up to a 35 per cent chance of requiring surgical control of bleeding. Endoscopic therapy has reduced the risk of recurrent bleeding to 10 per cent to 20 per cent and the need for surgery to 5 per cent to 10 per cent. These improvements translate to shorter hospital stays, fewer transfusions, lower costs, and less morbidity. Similar progress has been made for patients bleeding from esophageal varices. Mortality for a first variceal bleed is now approximately 20 per cent as compared with 40 per cent to 60 per cent in past decades. Rebleeding after initially successful endoscopic hemostasis is often best treated by a second attempt at endoscopic control. The decision regarding management of recurrent bleeding should be made at the time initial endoscopic control is achieved. Local factors such as experience of the endoscopic team, availability of interventional radiologists, and individual patient characteristics should guide these decisions. Failures of endoscopic control and patients with massive hemorrhage still require operative intervention.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: standard and new treatment

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a challenging problem with a significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years endoscopic techniques have evolved, resulting in improved primary hemostasis and a reduction in the risk of rebleeding. Combination endoscopic therapy followed by high-dose proton pump inhibitor shows improved outcomes. Innovative endoscopic therapies hold promise but are as yet unproved. An aging population with significant medical comorbidities has a major influence on the overall outcome from upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Acute endoscopic intervention in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the commonest emergencies encountered by general physicians. Once haemodynamic stability has been achieved, therapeutic endoscopy is vital in control and arrest of bleeding. Various methods are available and the evidence is reviewed as to the most optimal approach. Clinical parameters including timing of endoscopy, risk stratification, and predictors of failure will also be discussed together with a summary of recommendations based on current available evidence.

Management of bleeding peptic ulcer in France: a national inquiry

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate and compare management practices in France for bleeding peptic ulcers using a national inquiry of university and non-university hospitals.

METHOD

Responses to questionnaires sent to 812 gastroenterologists, 496 practicing in non-university hospitals and 316 in university hospitals, were compared.

RESULTS

An analysis was possible in 279 (34% response rate) of the questionnaires. Forrest classification was used more frequently in university hospitals (83% vs 60%, P<0.01). Endoscopic hemostatic therapy was used more frequently in university hospitals for Forrest Ib (92% vs 81%, P=0.02), IIa (93% vs 73%, P<0.001), and IIb (58% vs 29%, P<0.001) ulcers. Injection therapy, mainly epinephrine, was the first-intention treatment for 99% of the responding gastroenterologists. Proportions of clinicians employing hemoclips (27%) or argon plasma coagulation (21%) were similar in both types of practice. Anti-secretory treatment included mainly omeprazole (82%), given intravenously (76%), sometimes as bolus i.v. doses followed by i.v. high-dose continuous infusion (15%) with some variations according to the type of hospital. In the event of recurrent or persistent bleeding, surgery was more frequent in non-university hospitals. When rebleeding occurred, a second endoscopic treatment was performed in about one quarter of patients.

CONCLUSION

In France, management practices for bleeding peptic ulcer vary between university and non-university hospitals.

Optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although the initial rate of hemostasis achieved by endoscopic epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding is high, bleeding recurs in 14.6% to 35.5% of patients. The aim of this study was to compare rates of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic injection of two different volumes of epinephrine in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 72 patients with peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to 15 to 25 mL or 35 to 45 mL injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. The mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.4 mL: 95% CI [18.7, 20.1] in the 15 to 25 mL group and 41.1 mL: 95% CI [40.0, 42.2] in the 35 to 45 mL group. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 35 of 36 patients (97.2%) in the 15 to 25 mL group and in all 36 patients in the 35 to 45 mL group. The 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.05). For ulcers in the gastric body, the 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 31.6%; p = 0.003). For ulcers in other locations, including the gastric antrum and the duodenum, there were no significant differences in the rate of recurrent bleeding between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of 35 to 45 mL of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine is more effective than injection of 15 to 25 mL of the same solution for prevention of recurrent bleeding from ulcers in the body of the stomach.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses key issues in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding including patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, disposition, and recommended pharmacologic interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Optimal resuscitation before endoscopy and proper pharmacologic interventions after endoscopy seem to be as crucial to the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding as meticulous hemostatic techniques during the procedure. In a retrospective evaluation of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in those who underwent aggressive preendoscopic resuscitation. In a prospective, randomized clinical trial, patients who received intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy after endoscopic intervention had a significantly reduced rebleeding rate compared with their placebo control group.

SUMMARY

The algorithms described in this review can be applied clinically today and should directly lead to improved outcome. Nevertheless, even with the latest care available, results are not optimal. This review points to two major areas where we can benefit from improvement: primary hemostasis and recurrent bleeding. By pointing to these limitations, it is hoped that this review can help stimulate research in the field by applying new technologies to solve these problems. Endoscopic ultrasound, for example, could be used to help identify feeding vessels that can be treated endoscopically, thus potentially decreasing the incidence of failed primary hemostasis. Endoscopic suturing, when more fully developed, may provide a better hemostatic technique that can reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding. It is only through these reviews that our state of knowledge in the field can be constantly reevaluated to update today's clinician with the latest knowledge and stimulate tomorrow's researchers with challenging problems.

Endoscopic Approach to the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small bowel enteroscopy, and colonoscopy are well-established standards for initial evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, and have been used effectively for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. Although thermal, injection, and mechanical methods have been the mainstay of endoscopic therapy, promising new technologies such as endoscopic ultrasound and wireless capsule endoscopy will further advance our ability to improve morbidity and mortality from severe gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Herein we review current standards and recent advances in the endoscopic management of upper, lower, and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing mechanical methods of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection to epinephrine injection alone for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The hemostatic efficacy of mechanical methods of hemostasis, together with epinephrine injection, was compared with that of epinephrine injection alone in bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

Ninety patients with a peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to undergo a mechanical method of hemostasis (23 hemoclip application, 22 band ligation) plus epinephrine injection, or epinephrine injection alone.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 44/45 (97.8%) patients in both groups. The mean number of hemoclips and elastic bands applied were 2.8: 95% CI[2.5, 3.1] and 1.1: 95% CI[1.0, 1.2], respectively, and the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.9 mL: 95% CI[19.3 mL, 20.5 mL]. The rate of recurrent bleeding in the combination group (2/44, 4.5%) was significantly lower in comparison with the injection group (9/44, 20.5%, p < 0.05). The mean number of therapeutic endoscopic sessions needed to achieve permanent hemostasis in the combination group (1.04: 95% CI[1.01, 1.07]) was significantly lower vs. the injection group (1.22: 95% CI[1.15, 1.30]).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an endoscopic mechanical method of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection is more effective than epinephrine injection alone for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.

Efficacy of Local Adrenalin Injection during Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Excision

BACKGROUND

The most commonly preferred treatment method for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease is surgery. Peroperative and postoperative hemorrhages may develop frequently because of the increased vascularity of the region. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of adrenalin, a potent vasoconstrictor agent, on pilonidal sinus operations in comparison to a control group.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study was designed and 51 patients with symptomatic, uncomplicated pilonidal disease were included (44 males and 7 females; mean age 24.5, range 16-44 years). Adrenalin 0.1 mg with 10 ml 0.9% NaCl (1/100,000 dilution) was injected through the incision tracts to all layers and the base of the incision area in group 1 (n = 21). The same process was applied to group 2 (n = 21) with 10 ml physiological serum solution. Then, after removal of the sinus and its tracks, a suction-type drain was placed in the pouch in all cases and the incision was primarily closed. Peroperative and postoperative hemorrhage, and operation time were accepted as the evaluation criteria. Cases were followed for 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The amount of peroperative hemorrhage was 6.5 +/- 3.5 ml in group 1 and 17.5 +/- 9.5 ml in group 2 (p < 0.001). The postoperative hemorrhage was 11 +/- 7.5 ml in group 1 and 13.5 +/- 6 ml in group 2 (p > 0.05). The operation time was 14 +/- 5 min in group 1 and 22 +/- 8.5 min in group 2 (p < 0.05). No reactionary hemorrhage, hematoma or recurrence was seen during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenalin injection is quite effective to decrease peroperative bleeding and operation time, but it does not decrease postoperative bleeding and the need for a drain.

A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic band ligation vs. epinephrine injection for actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss syndrome

BACKGROUND

Effective hemostatic treatment is mandatory for patients with actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss syndrome. This study evaluated the respective efficacy and the safety of endoscopic band ligation and endoscopic epinephrine injection in Mallory-Weiss syndrome.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss syndrome were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to undergo endoscopic band ligation or endoscopic injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine. Demographic characteristics, endoscopic variables, and outcome parameters, including rates of hemostasis and recurrent bleeding, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The number of elastic bands applied was one or two; the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 18.0 mL: 95% CI[16.8, 19.2]. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to age, gender, alcohol ingestion, presenting symptoms, Hb level, shock, comorbid diseases, coagulopathy, tear location, blood transfusion, or duration of hospitalization. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all 17 patients in the band ligation group and in 16 of 17 patients (94.1%) in the epinephrine injection group. There was no recurrence of bleeding or major complication in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study, no difference was detected in the efficacy or the safety of band ligation vs. epinephrine injection for the treatment of actively bleeding Mallory-Weiss syndrome.

Endoscopic therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients. Although initially employed diagnostically, endoscopy has steadily replaced surgery as a first-line treatment in all but the haemodynamically unstable patient. A vast selection of techniques and devices are now available to the dedicated therapeutic endoscopist, including injection therapy, electrical or thermal coagulation and mechanical banding or clipping. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for targeting treatment is increasing and the development of new technologies, such as capsule endoscopy, is likely to play an important role in future protocols. However, despite numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of different endoscopic interventions, the implementation of obtained results into treatment regimes has so far failed to impact significantly on overall UGIB mortality, which remains stubbornly at 10-14%. Reducing this continues to be one of the main challenges facing the therapeutic endoscopist.

Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection.

METHODS

An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal UGI bleeding is one of the most common emergencies that gastroenterologists encounter, and continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The keys to management are rapid resuscitation and stabilization; appropriate triage based on pre-endoscopic risk factors; early endoscopy to achieve prompt diagnosis and implement hemostatic therapy to high-risk lesions; and aggressive antisecretory therapy (in the case of peptic ulcer bleeding) to reduce the risk of continued or recurrent bleeding.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration.

SUMMARY

These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.

Interventional endoscopy

Technologic milestones have been achieved in the field of interventional endoscopy. These have resulted in improved hemostasis, more accurate cancer staging, safer and less invasive methods of removing gastric neoplasms, and endoscopic palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction via stenting. However, just as these milestones are achieved, new challenges emerge: (1) How much sedation can one use safely? (2) What is the risk of transmitting infection and how can that be prevented? (3) Can scopes be made smaller and more comfortable? (4) Can optics be improved? (5) Can endoscopic repair of gastric perforations be safely performed? In this section, we review some of these issues. First, we will provide an update on the most recent concepts in the field of light sedation and infection control. Then, a review of the most commonly used interventional endoscopy procedures, including hemostasis, endosonography, endoscopic mucosal resection, stenting, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube placements. Finally, an overview of the ongoing research and development in the field of interventional endoscopy and how it can improve patient comfort, diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic efficacy, and training in the future.