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

Multicenter evaluation of first-line endoscopic treatment with the OTSC in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and comparison with the Rockall cohort: the FLETRock study

INTRODUCTION

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) overcomes limitations of standard clips and achieves a more efficient and reliable hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). The study aims to evaluate mortality, rebleeding, and mortality after rebleeding of patients in whom the OTSC was used as the first-line endoscopic treatment (FLET) of NVUGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 118 patients (FLET cohort) with a median age of 73.5 years (range 29-93 years; mean (±SD) 71.39 ± 12.39 years) were included. The distribution of patients with respect to risk category revealed a median Rockall score of 7 (range 3-10). For hypothesis testing, the FLET cohort was categorized into three risk groups taking into account the Rockall score: low risk [Rockall risk category (RRC ≤3)], moderate risk (RRC 4-7), and high risk (RRC ≥8). Event rates (mortality, rebleeding, and mortality after rebleeding) observed per risk group were compared to predicted event rates (Rockall cohort) using Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

Primary successful hemostasis (PSH) was achieved in 92.4% either by FLET alone or in combination with an additional hemostasis technique in 1.7% (SCS = secondary clinical success). In 7.5% of the FLET cohort PSH could not be achieved. Compared to RRC prediction, mortality after rebleeding was significantly reduced from 27.9 to 10.9% in the high-risk group (RRC ≥8) treated with FLET (p < 0.011). Furthermore, the occurrence of rebleeding or continued bleeding was significantly lower in the moderate risk group (RRC 4-7) with 4.9% as well as in the high-risk group (RRC ≥8) with 21.4% compared to the Rockall cohort 24.0 and 53.2%, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that OTSC is superior to standard care and FLET reduces significantly rebleeding and rebleeding-associated mortality in NVUGIB. For this reason, OTSC could be the treatment of choice as the first-line treatment as an alternative to standard hemostasis techniques in high-risk patients.

Complementary roles of interventional radiology and therapeutic endoscopy in gastroenterology

Acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding, enteral feeding, cecostomy tubes and luminal strictures are some of the common reasons for gastroenterology service. While surgery was initially considered the main treatment modality, the advent of both therapeutic endoscopy and interventional radiology have resulted in the paradigm shift in the management of these conditions. In this paper, we discuss the patient’s work up, indications, and complementary roles of endoscopic and angiographic management in the settings of gastrointestinal bleeding, enteral feeding, cecostomy tube placement and luminal strictures. These conditions often require multidisciplinary approaches involving a team of interventional radiologists, gastroenterologists and surgeons. Further, the authors also aim to describe how the fields of interventional radiology and gastrointestinal endoscopy are overlapping and complementary in the management of these complex conditions.

Recent Developments in the Endoscopic Treatment of Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is an internal medical emergency. Endoscopic hemostasis has been shown to improve the survival rate of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Although the established hemostatic modalities, including injection, thermal therapy, and mechanical therapy, are effective in controlling peptic ulcer bleeding, hemostasis can be difficult to achieve in some cases. As a result, recent, new endoscopic hemostatic modalities, including over-the-scope clips, topical hemostatic sprays, and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided angiotherapy, have been developed.

Endoscopic management of post-bariatric surgery complications

Understanding the technical constructs of bariatric surgery is important to the treating endoscopist to maximize effective endoluminal therapy. Post-operative complication rates vary widely based on the complication of interest, and have been reported to be as high as 68% following adjustable gastric banding. Similarly, there is a wide range of presenting symptoms for post-operative bariatric complications, including abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, dysphagia, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and weight regain, all of which may provoke an endoscopic assessment. Bleeding and anastomotic leak are considered to be early (< 30 d) complications, whereas strictures, marginal ulcers, band erosions, and weight loss failure or weight recidivism are typically considered late (> 30 d) complications. Treatment of complications in the immediate post-operative period may require unique considerations. Endoluminal therapies serve as adjuncts to surgical and radiographic procedures. This review aims to summarize the spectrum and efficacy of endoscopic management of post-operative bariatric complications.

Endoscopic hemostasis state of the art - Nonvariceal bleeding

New endoscopic techniques for hemostasis in nonvariceal bleeding were introduced and known methods further improved. Hemospray and Endoclot are two new compounds for topical treatment of bleeding. Initial studies in this area have shown a good hemostatic effect, especially in active large scale oozing bleeding, e.g., tumor bleedings. For further evaluation larger prospective studies comparing the substanced with other methods of endoscopic hemostasis are needed. For localized active arterial bleeding primary injection therapy in the area of ​​bleeding as well as in the four adjacent quadrants offers a good method to reduce bleeding activity. The injection is technically easy to learn and practicable. After bleeding activity is reduced the bleeding source can be localized more clearly for clip application. Today many different through-the-scope (TTS) clips are available. The ability to close and reopen a clip can aid towards good positioning at the bleeding site. Even more important is the rotatability of a clip before application. Often multiple TTS clips are required for secure closure of a bleeding vessel. One model has the ability to use three clips in series without changing the applicator. Severe arterial bleeding from vessels larger than 2 mm is often unmanageable with these conventional methods. Here is the over-the-scope-clip system another newly available method. It is similar to the ligation of esophageal varices and involves aspiration of tissue into a transparent cap before closure of the clip. Thus a greater vascular occlusion pressure can be achieved and larger vessels can be treated endoscopically. Patients with severe arterial bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract have a very high rate of recurrence after initial endoscopic treatment. These patients should always be managed in an interdisciplinary team of interventional radiologist and surgeons.

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

BACKGROUND

The verbalisation of quality standards and parameters by medical societies are relevant for qualitative improvement but may also be an instrument to demand more resources for health care or be a unique characteristic. Within the health care system 3 different quality levels can be defined: structure, process and result quality.

METHODS

The current S2k guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology (quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy) AWMF registry no. 021-022 provides recommendations based on the available evidence for the structure quality (requirements for equipment, human resources) as well as for the process quality (patient preparation, conduct, documentation) and result quality (follow-up of specific endoscopic procedures).

RESULTS

Based on these recommendations, measurable quality indicators/parameters for the endoscopy have been selected and formulated. General quality parameters for endoscopic examinations are given as well as quality parameters for specific procedures for the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of specific endoscopic interventions.

CONCLUSION

Only the regular review of processes and courses by means of defined measurement parameters builds up the basis for corrections based on facts. In addition, the implementation of recommended standards may be an instrument in demanding more resources from the health care system and, therefore, should be embedded as routine.

Endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: A randomized, controlled trial of epinephrine alone with epinephrine plus fresh frozen plasma

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common and potentially life-threatening emergency with substantial mortality. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP), a good source of coagulation factors, might be an ideal injection agent based on its physiologic properties. Therefore, we evaluated the role of FFP as a hemostatic agent in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From August 2015 to April 2016, 108 consecutive patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were admitted to our university hospital. They were randomly assigned to undergo injection of epinephrine alone (A) or epinephrine plus FFP (B). The primary outcomes assessed were the initial hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, hospital stay, blood transfusion, surgery rate, and 14-day mortality.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 47 of 50 patients (94%) in the Group A and 49 of 50 patients (98%) in the Group B (P = 0.61). There were no significant differences in the rate of recurrent bleeding between Group A (14%) and Group B (8%) (P = 0.52). We found no significant differences between Group A and Group B with respect to the surgery rate, bleeding death, procedure-related death, and duration of hospitalization (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

It is concluded the injection of epinephrine alone was equally effective as injection of epinephrine plus FFP to endoscopic hemostasis. Epinephrine alone and epinephrine plus FFP were not different in recurrent bleeding, rate of surgery, blood transfusion, or mortality.

Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding proximal to the ligament of Treitz in the absence of oesophageal, gastric or duodenal varices. The clinical presentation varies according to the intensity of bleeding from occult bleeding to melena or haematemesis and haemorrhagic shock. Causes of UGIB are peptic ulcers, Mallory-Weiss lesions, erosive gastritis, reflux oesophagitis, Dieulafoy lesions or angiodysplasia. After admission to the hospital a structured approach to the patient with acute UGIB that includes haemodynamic resuscitation and stabilization as well as pre-endoscopic risk stratification has to be done. Endoscopy offers not only the localisation of the bleeding site but also a variety of therapeutic measures like injection therapy, thermocoagulation or endoclips. Endoscopic therapy is facilitated by acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. These drugs are highly effective but the best route of application (oral vs intravenous) and the adequate dosage are still subjects of discussion. Patients with ulcer disease are tested for Helicobacter pylori and eradication therapy should be given if it is present. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have to be discontinued if possible. If discontinuation is not possible, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in combination with PPI have the lowest bleeding risk but the incidence of cardiovascular events is increased.

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding - review the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis methods

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a condition that requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate (exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy (within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: state of the art

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recently developed endoscopic devices and supporting apparatuses can achieve endoscopic hemostasis with greater safety and efficiency. With these advancements in technology and technique, gastroenterologists should have no concerns regarding the management of acute upper GI bleeding, provided that they are well prepared and trained. However, when endoscopic hemostasis fails, endoscopy should not be continued. Rather, endoscopists should refer patients to radiologists and surgeons without any delay for evaluation regarding the appropriateness of emergency interventional radiology or surgery.

Comparison of the efficacy of two combined therapies for peptic ulcer bleeding: adrenaline injection plus haemoclipping versus adrenaline injection followed by bipolar electrocoagulation

INTRODUCTION

Peptic ulcer remains the most frequent cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Treatment of bleeding with simultaneous combination of two endoscopic techniques has proved to be more efficient than monotherapy. None of the published comparative studies of various contact coagulation modalities have confirmed the superiority of one of these techniques over the others.

AIM

To compare the therapeutic outcomes of the use of a device enabling both injection of adrenaline solution and bipolar electrocoagulation (A + BE) to those of combined adrenaline injection with mechanical therapy (haemostatic clips) (A + HC) in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-two subjects with bleeding ulcers were assigned to the A + BE group, and 55 patients were treated with A + HC.

RESULTS

Overall, treatment failed in 20 patients (20/107, 18.7%): in 10 individuals from the A + BE group (10/52; 18.2%) and in 10 individuals from the A + HC group (10/55; 19.2%) (p > 0.05). Primary haemostasis was not obtained in 7 patients (6.5%): in 4 patients in the A + BE group and in 3 patients in the A + HC group (p > 0.05). Ten individuals (9.3%) experienced recurrent bleeding during hospitalisation: 4 patients from the A + BE group and 6 patients from the A + HC group (p > 0.05). Finally, in 96.3% of the patients (n = 103) the endoscopic treatment proved efficient with regards to obtaining haemostasis during hospitalisation. Surgical intervention was required in 4 individuals (3.7%): 2 patients in the A + BE group and 2 patients treated with A + HC (p > 0.05). Three patients (2.8%) - all from the A + HC group - died during hospitalisation. No significant intergroup differences were documented with regards to the mean number of transfused blood units and the mean length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of combined endoscopic treatment of ulcer bleeding with a probe enabling simultaneous bipolar electrocoagulation and adrenaline injection seems comparable to the widely used dual technique of adrenaline injection and haemostatic clipping.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding emergencies: evidence-based medicine and practical considerations

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding remains one of the most common encounters in emergency medicine. The increased use of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs by the general population and the increased prescription of anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants after cardiovascular interventions and for prevention of cerebral vascular accidents may have aggravated the situation. Significant progress has been made in the past decade or so in the non-surgical management of acute upper GI bleeding emergencies. This article will review the current standard treatment of the most common upper GI bleeding emergencies in adults as supported by evidence-based medicine with practical considerations from the authors' own practice experience.

Endoscopy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding plays an important role in primary diagnosis and management, particularly with respect to identification of high-risk stigmata lesions and to providing endoscopic hemostasis to reduce the risk of rebleeding and mortality. Early endoscopy, defined as endoscopy within the first 24 hours after presentation, improves patient outcome and reduces the length of hospitalization when compared with delayed endoscopy. Various endoscopic hemostatic methods are available, including injection therapy, mechanical therapy, and thermal coagulation. Either single treatment with mechanical or thermal therapy or a treatment that combines more than one type of therapy are effective and safe for peptic ulcer bleeding. Newly developed methods, such as Hemospray powder and over-the-scope clips, may provide additional options. Appropriate decisions and specific treatment are needed depending upon the conditions.

State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease

The management of patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has evolved, as have its causes and prognosis, over the past 20 years. The addition of high-quality data coupled to the publication of authoritative national and international guidelines have helped define current-day standards of care. This review highlights the relevant clinical evidence and consensus recommendations that will hopefully result in promoting the effective dissemination and knowledge translation of important information in the management of patients afflicted with this common entity.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage: Controversies and areas of uncertainty

Upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage (UGIH) remains a common presentation requiring urgent evaluation and treatment. Accurate assessment, appropriate intervention and apt clinical skills are needed for proper management from time of presentation to discharge. The advent of pharmacologic acid suppression, endoscopic hemostatic techniques, and recognition of Helicobacter pylori as an etiologic agent in peptic ulcer disease (PUD) has revolutionized the treatment of UGIH. Despite this, acute UGIH still carries considerable rates of morbidity and mortality. This review aims to discuss current areas of uncertainty and controversy in the management of UGIH. Neoadjuvant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has become standard empiric treatment for UGIH given that PUD is the leading cause of non-variceal UGIH, and PPIs are extremely effective at promoting ulcer healing. However, neoadjuvant PPI administration has not been shown to affect hard clinical outcomes such as rebleeding or mortality. The optimal timing of upper endoscopy in UGIH is often debated. Upon completion of volume resuscitation and hemodynamic stabilization, upper endoscopy should be performed within 24 h in all patients with evidence of UGIH for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. With rising healthcare cost paramount in today’s medical landscape, the ability to appropriately triage UGIH patients is of increasing value. Upper endoscopy in conjunction with the clinical scenario allows for accurate decision making concerning early discharge home in low-risk lesions or admission for further monitoring and treatment in higher-risk lesions. Concomitant pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, has a major impact on the etiology, severity, and potential treatment of UGIH. Long-term PPI use in patients taking chronic NSAIDs or clopidogrel is discussed thoroughly in this review.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage: controversies and areas of uncertainty

Upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage (UGIH) remains a common presentation requiring urgent evaluation and treatment. Accurate assessment, appropriate intervention and apt clinical skills are needed for proper management from time of presentation to discharge. The advent of pharmacologic acid suppression, endoscopic hemostatic techniques, and recognition of Helicobacter pylori as an etiologic agent in peptic ulcer disease (PUD) has revolutionized the treatment of UGIH. Despite this, acute UGIH still carries considerable rates of morbidity and mortality. This review aims to discuss current areas of uncertainty and controversy in the management of UGIH. Neoadjuvant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has become standard empiric treatment for UGIH given that PUD is the leading cause of non-variceal UGIH, and PPIs are extremely effective at promoting ulcer healing. However, neoadjuvant PPI administration has not been shown to affect hard clinical outcomes such as rebleeding or mortality. The optimal timing of upper endoscopy in UGIH is often debated. Upon completion of volume resuscitation and hemodynamic stabilization, upper endoscopy should be performed within 24 h in all patients with evidence of UGIH for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. With rising healthcare cost paramount in today's medical landscape, the ability to appropriately triage UGIH patients is of increasing value. Upper endoscopy in conjunction with the clinical scenario allows for accurate decision making concerning early discharge home in low-risk lesions or admission for further monitoring and treatment in higher-risk lesions. Concomitant pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents, such as clopidogrel, has a major impact on the etiology, severity, and potential treatment of UGIH. Long-term PPI use in patients taking chronic NSAIDs or clopidogrel is discussed thoroughly in this review.

Hemodynamic efficacy of the over-the-scope clip in an established porcine cadaveric model for spurting bleeding

BACKGROUND

Clip application has been proven to be effective for endoscopic hemostasis. There are limited bench data on the efficacy of the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) for the treatment of spurting GI hemorrhage. We evaluated the hemodynamic efficacy of the OTSC in an established bleeding model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the hemodynamic efficacy of the OTSC in an established bleeding model.

DESIGN

Prospective experimental trial with historical comparison.

SETTING

We tested the OTSC prospectively in a validated bleeding model by using the compact Erlangen Active Simulator for Interventional Endoscopy equipped with an upper GI organ package. The artificial blood circulation system of the simulator was connected to an arterial pressure transducer. Two investigators with different endoscopic experience (4000 and 10,000 endoscopies performed) participated. Each investigator treated 16 bleeding sites in the simulator with the OTSC by using only suction (n = 8) and a novel retraction device to grasp tissue (n = 8). Systemic pressures were recorded 1 minute before, during, and 1 minute after clip application to objectify the effects of clipping on the vessel diameter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mean and maximum reduction in vessel diameter.

RESULTS

The application of the OTSC on the bleeding vessel led to a significant increase in systemic pressure (P < .001) and decreased vessel diameter (P < .001) independent of the endoscopic experience of the investigator. There was no difference in the decrease in vessel diameter based on the application technique (suction vs suction plus grasping). A historical comparison with our former trials demonstrated that the OTSC decreased the vessel diameter significantly more than other traditional endoclips.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

We could demonstrate the efficacy of the OTSC with increased hemodynamic efficiency compared with other endoscopic clip devices tested previously.

Endoscopic therapy for severe ulcer bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding secondary to ulcer disease occurs commonly and results in significant patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis of the source of the UGI hemorrhage and can reliably identify those high-risk subgroups that may benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce the cost of medical care. This article discusses the important aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding from ulcers, with a focus on endoscopic therapy.

Therapeutic and interventional endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding remains a common clinical problem encountered by every emergency room and trauma physician. Endoscopy remains the main approach to the diagnosis and therapy of GI bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To present the modern endoscopic approach for GI bleeding.

METHODS

Narrative review based on our expertise and inclusion of classic articles dealing with interventional and therapeutic GI endoscopy.

RESULTS

GI hemorrhage is now classified as upper, middle, and lower GI bleeding. Upper GI bleeding is defined as hemorrhage originating from the oropharynx to the ligament of Treitz (or papilla of Vater), middle GI bleeding occurs distal to the papilla of Vater to the terminal ileum, and lower GI bleeding is defined as bleeding distal to the ileocecal valve, including the entire colon and anorectum. Endoscopic methods used to diagnosed and treat GI bleeding include esophagogastroduodenoscopy, duodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, double- and single-balloon enteroscopy, spiral enteroscopy, and colonosocopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review paper dedicated to endoscopic therapy for bleeding involving any part of the luminal GI tract (i.e., esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon). Modern endoscopy permits the investigation and treatment of the majority of conditions affecting the entire hollow GI tract.

[Classification and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

The upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains the most frequent emergency in gastroenterology. Due to the different therapeutic approach a distinction between the variceal and the non-variceal bleeding has been established. A risk assessment for the individual patient is crucial for timing of the endoscopic procedure as well as for the estimation of prognosis. This review gives an overview on modern therapeutic techniques for both, variceal and non-variceal bleeding highlighting on success rates but also on potential complications of the different therapeutic interventions.

Management of massive peptic ulcer bleeding

Massive bleeding from a peptic ulcer remains a challenge. A multidisciplinary team of skilled endoscopists, intensive care specialists, experienced upper gastrointestinal surgeons, and intervention radiologists all have a role to play. Endoscopy is the first-line treatment. Even with larger ulcers, endoscopic hemostasis can be achieved in the majority of cases. Surgery is clearly indicated in patients in whom arterial bleeding cannot be controlled at endoscopy. Angiographic embolization is an alternate option, particularly in those unfit for surgery. In selected patients judged to belong to the high-risk group--ulcers 2 cm or greater in size located at the lesser curve and posterior bulbar duodenal, shock on presentation, and elderly with comorbid illnesses--a more aggressive postendoscopy management is warranted. The optimal course of action is unclear. Most would be expectant and offer medical therapy in the form of acid suppression. Surgical series suggest that early elective surgery may improve outcome. Angiography allows the bleeding artery to be characterized, and coil embolization of larger arteries may further add to endoscopic hemostasis. The role of early elective surgery or angiographic embolization in selected high-risk patients to forestall recurrent bleeding remains controversial. Prospective studies are needed to compare different management strategies in these high-risk ulcers.

Recent advances in peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a common cause of hospital admission, morbidity and mortality. Data published since 2006 illustrate that assessment, endoscopic and pharmacological management, and follow-up strategies can be refined to improve the overall prognosis of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study was to determine appropriate endoscopic treatment of patients with bleeding ulcers by synthesizing results of randomized controlled trials. We performed dual independent bibliographic database searches to identify randomized trials of thermal therapy, injection therapy, or clips for bleeding ulcers with active bleeding, visible vessels, or clots, focusing on results from studies without second-look endoscopy and re-treatment. The primary end point was further (persistent plus recurrent) bleeding. Compared with epinephrine, further bleeding was reduced significantly by other monotherapies (relative risk [RR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.93]; number-needed-to-treat [NNT], 9 [95% CI, 5-53]), and epinephrine followed by another modality (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23-0.50]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 5-7]); epinephrine was not significantly less effective in studies with second-look and re-treatment. Compared with no endoscopic therapy, further bleeding was reduced by thermal contact (heater probe, bipolar electrocoagulation) (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.36-0.54]; NNT, 4 [95% CI, 3-5]) and sclerosant therapy (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-13]). Clips were more effective than epinephrine (RR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09-0.55]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-9]), but not different than other therapies, although the latter studies were heterogeneous, showing better and worse results for clips. Endoscopic therapy was effective for active bleeding (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43]; NNT, 2 [95% CI, 2-2]) and a nonbleeding visible vessel (RR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.40-0.59]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-6]), but not for a clot. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy significantly improved outcome compared with placebo/no therapy (RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28-0.59]; NNT, 12 [95% CI, 10-18]), but not compared with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists. Thermal devices, sclerosants, clips, and thrombin/fibrin glue appear to be effective endoscopic hemostatic therapies. Epinephrine should not be used alone. Endoscopic therapy should be performed for ulcers with active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessels, but efficacy is uncertain for clots. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion intravenous proton pump inhibitor should be used after endoscopic therapy.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.

Endoscopic haemostasis

Endoscopic haemostasis should be attempted as the initial approach in most cases of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, although cross-disciplinary collaboration is a prerequisite. For variceal bleeding, band ligation is the method of choice in the elective setting, although injection therapy still has a role in acute bleeding. Histoacryl remains preferable for fundic varices in most parts of the world. For peptic ulcer bleeds, injection therapy should be combined with at least one 'mechanical' modality, thermal treatment or clipping. In rebleeding, a single endoscopic retreatment can be attempted, but alternative approaches must be considered. Acute lower GI bleeding is primarily a diagnostic challenge but, if the focus is found, the regular techniques for haemostasis can usually be applied. If small bowel haemorrhage is suspected after upper and lower endoscopy, capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy offer make it possible to address even small bowel foci.

Future expectations in the prophylaxis of intestinal bleeding

Prophylaxis of gastrointestinal bleeding is attempted in widely varying situations. In NSAID-induced peptic ulcer, the advantage of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors with regard to gastrointestinal damage has yet to be translated into an advantage in overall morbidity. Strategies for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding have been established. Therapy tailored to hepatic venous pressure gradient has the potential to achieve clinical relevance. Several methods have been developed to prevent postpolypectomy bleeding, but their optimal risk-tailored application has yet to be demonstrated. Although octreotide treatment seems to be beneficial in reducing the blood loss from angiodysplasias, controlled studies to determine its optimal use are awaited. Stress-ulcer prophylaxis is commonly applied in critically ill patients. Although data indicate that H2-receptor antagonists and omeprazole are effective in preventing clinically significant bleeding, evidence for an advantage with respect to length of hospital or intensive-care-unit stay, as well as mortality, is still lacking. Since there is misuse of acid-suppressing drugs on regular wards, in-house guidelines may offer the potential for saving costs and reducing inappropriate prescription.

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.