Randomized trial of adrenaline injection and laser photocoagulation in the control of haemorrhage from peptic ulcer

Epinephrine injection therapy versus a combination of epinephrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding ulcers

AIM: To assess the efficacy of hemoclip application in combination with epinephrine injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers and to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with such a combination therapy and those treated with epinephrine injection alone.

METHODS: A total of 293 patients (211 males, 82 females) underwent endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Of these, 202 patients (152 males, 50 females) received epinephrine injection therapy while 91 patients (59 males, 32 females) received combination therapy. The choice of endoscopic therapy was made by the endoscopist. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, need for emergency surgery and 30-d mortality were the outcome measures studied.

RESULTS: Patients who received combination therapy were significantly older (mean age 66±16 years, range 24-90 years) and more suffered from chronic renal failure compared to those who received epinephrine injection therapy alone (mean age 61±17 years, range 21-89 years). Failure to achieve permanent hemostasis was 4% in the group who received epinephrine injection alone and 11% in the group who received combination therapy. When the differences in age and renal function between the two treatment groups were taken into account by multivariate analysis, the rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rates, need for surgery and 30-d mortality for both treatment options were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of epinephrine injection with endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective method of achieving hemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcer diseases. However, superiority of combination therapy over epinephrine injection alone, could not be demonstrated.

Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis: the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies

OBJECTIVES

Controversy exists regarding the optimal strategy to minimize recurrent ulcer hemorrhage after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies for the posthemostasis management of patients with high risk ulcer stigmata.

METHODS

Through decision analysis, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of four strategies: 1) follow patients clinically after hemostasis and repeat endoscopy only in patients with evidence of rebleeding (usual care); 2) administer intravenous proton pump inhibitors (i.v. PPIs) after hemostasis and repeat endoscopy only in patients with clinical signs of rebleeding; 3) perform second look endoscopy at 24 h in all patients with successful endoscopic hemostasis; and 4) perform selective second look endoscopy at 24 h only in patients at high risk for rebleeding as identified by the prospectively validated Baylor Bleeding Score. Probability estimates were derived from a systematic review of the medical literature. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursement. Effectiveness was defined as the proportion of patients with rebleeding, surgery, or death prevented.

RESULTS

The selective second look endoscopy strategy was the most effective and least expensive of the four competing strategies, and therefore dominated the analysis. The i.v. PPI strategy required 50% fewer endoscopies than the competing strategies, and became the dominant strategy when the rebleed rate with i.v. PPIs fell below 9% and when the cost of i.v. PPIs fell below 10 dollars/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the usual practice of "watchful waiting," performing selective second look endoscopy in high risk patients may prevent more cases of rebleeding, surgery, or death at a lower overall cost. However, i.v. PPIs are likely to reduce the need for second look endoscopy and may be preferred overall if the rebleed rate and cost of i.v. PPIs remains low.

Variable use of endoscopic haemostasis in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that endoscopic haemostasis is beneficial for patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer. The relevance of such data to management outside of RCTs is unclear. Therefore we examined management of patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer in a UK teaching hospital.

METHODS

All patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer between 1997 and 1999 were identified from an endoscopy database and the clinical records reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 872 patients underwent UGI endoscopy for presumed acute UGI haemorrhage; 179 (21%) had an endoscopic diagnosis of bleeding peptic ulcer. Seventy nine patients had a peptic ulcer with stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) but only 61 (77%) of these patients received endoscopic haemostasis (77% adrenaline, 23% combination therapy). Re-bleeding occurred in 24 patients with SRH in whom transfusion requirement was the sole predictor of re-bleeding. The re-bleeding rate among patients who received adrenaline was 25% (n=12), compared with 57% (n=8) in the combination group and 31% (n=4) in those who did not receive endoscopic haemostasis. Patients who received combination endoscopic haemostasis had an increased incidence of active bleeding (p=0.007) and an increased transfusion requirement (p=0.002). Eleven of 20 patients who re-bled had repeat endoscopic haemostasis, with 45% eventually requiring surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of endoscopic management of bleeding peptic ulcers in the unit studied differ markedly from those published by specialised centres. The data reported here suggest that increased standardisation of endoscopic haemostasis is required, especially in units with provision for emergency "out-of-hours" endoscopy, performed by several individuals of different grades.

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

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of epinephrine in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer is considered highly effective, safe, inexpensive, and easy to use. However, bleeding recurs in 6% to 36% of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal dose of epinephrine for endoscopic injection in the treatment of patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-six patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were randomized to receive small- (5-10 mL) or large-volume (13-20 mL) injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine.

RESULTS

The mean volume of epinephrine injected was 16.5 mL (95% CI [15.7, 17.3 mL]) in the large-volume group and 8.0 mL (95% CI [7.5, 8.4 mL]) in the small-volume group. Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients studied. The number of episodes of recurrent bleeding was smaller in the large-volume group (12/78, 15.4%) compared with the small-volume group (24/78, 30.8%, p = 0.037). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent surgery, and mortality rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of a large volume (>13 mL) of epinephrine can reduce the rate of recurrent bleeding in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer and is superior to injection of lesser volumes of epinephrine when used to achieve sustained hemostasis.

Randomized trial of normal saline solution injection versus bipolar electrocoagulation for treatment of patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers: is local tamponade enough?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of normal saline solution is reportedly an effective treatment for bleeding ulcers. If it is as effective as standard therapy, low cost, wide availability, and lack of injury would make saline solution injection an attractive option.

METHODS

Patients with clinical evidence of major bleeding from an ulcer with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to injection with normal saline solution (1-2 mL boluses; mean volume 30 mL) or bipolar electrocoagulation (20 W, 10-sec applications; mean time 100 sec). Patients, those caring for patients, and those collecting data were blinded to therapy.

RESULTS

Further bleeding occurred in 14 (29%) of 48 patients in the saline solution group versus 6 (12%) of 52 patients in the bipolar group (95% CI [2%, 33%]; p = 0.04). Significantly more units of blood were transfused in the saline solution group (median 2 units vs. 0 units; p = 0.01). Hospital days (median 4 vs. 3) and mortality (6% vs. 2%) were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Independent risk factors for further bleeding were saline solution injection (p = 0.02), units transfused before therapy (p = 0.02), and ulcer size (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Local tamponade with saline solution injection is less effective than bipolar electrocoagulation for the treatment of bleeding ulcers.

Current status of endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding

This article provides an overview of the therapeutic endoscopic modalities available for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. The benefits of endoscopic haemostasis have been fully demonstrated by three meta-analyses, which included most of the controlled trials published until 1992. In this review, an emphasis is placed on randomized, prospective comparative trials published during the past 20 years. Using an evidence-based medicine approach, the results of meta-analyses are translated into efficacy measures known as relative and absolute risk reductions, and number needed to treat. Single-modality treatments with injection agents such as epinephrine, sclerosants and thrombogenic substances, or with thermal therapies, are efficacious and comparable. Combination therapy involving injection and thermal techniques may offer an advantage over single-method therapy. The differences in the results between clinical trials and routine clinical practice, and among the various randomized studies, are probably related to operators' experience and variations in technique rather than to inconsistency of endoscopic haemostasis.

Injection therapy for endoscopic haemostasis

Endoscopic injection is widely used for the arrest of active ulcer bleeding and for prevention of re-bleeding from ulcers with visible vessels. Although of proven value in clinical trials, mechanisms of action are unclear; tamponade, vasoconstriction, endarteritis and a direct effect upon the clotting process at the site of the arterial defect have been proposed. Clinical trials show that dilute adrenaline is an effective agent and that the addition of sclerosants or alcohol confirms no extra benefit, yet risks serious side-effects. The best results are associated with injection of fibrin glue or thrombin which stimulate formation of a stable blood clot. The efficacy of injection, thermal modalities such as the heater probe and electrocoagulation using BICAP are comparable. In general, there is an advantage in combining injection with a thermal modality, although this may have merit in patients with severe, active ulcer bleeding. Patients who re-bleed following successful primary haemostatic injection treatment can be considered for further endoscopic intervention, but the decision to undertake a surgical operation or repeat endoscopic therapy is a matter of clinical judgement.