Clots and spots on ulcers: why and how to treat

Which types of non-bleeding visible vessels in gastric peptic ulcers should be treated by endoscopic hemostasis?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Because non-bleeding visible vessels (NBVV) of gastric peptic ulcers have the potential to re-bleed, endoscopic hemostatic treatment may be necessary during the first emergency endoscopy. However, not all NBVV re-bleed, and endoscopic hemostasis sometimes causes fatal side-effects. Therefore, we have evaluated the risk of re-bleeding from various NBVV in gastric peptic ulcers to determine which types should be treated by endoscopy to prevent re-bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 227 NBVV in 202 patients with gastric peptic ulcers that were endoscopically followed without endoscopic hemostatic procedures were classified by the following factors: vessel color, form, location of the NBVV in the ulcer crater, and location of the ulcer in the stomach. The re-bleeding rate was then analyzed for each type of NBVV.

RESULTS

Significantly high rates of re-bleeding were observed in cases with white, protruded and peripheral NBVV. In particular, white NBVV located in the peripheral zone of the ulcer crater were frequent re-bleeding sources. The location of the ulcer in the stomach was not a statistically significant factor in determining re-bleeding rates.

CONCLUSION

We found that white, protruded and peripherally located NBVV in gastric ulcers have a higher chance of re-bleeding if preventive endoscopic hemostatic procedures are not performed.

Endoscopic treatment compared with medical therapy for the prevention of recurrent ulcer hemorrhage in patients with adherent clots

BACKGROUND

Two recent randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for combination endoscopic therapy in the management of bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of this technique in a clinical practice setting.

METHODS

Medical records of consecutive patients, seen from January 1992 through December 1999, with severe ulcer hemorrhage and non-bleeding adherent clots resistant to target irrigation were reviewed. The decision for combination endoscopic therapy (epinephrine injection, removal of adherent clot, treatment of underlying stigmata) or medical therapy was left to the discretion of the endoscopist.

RESULTS

Of 244 patients with adherent clots, 138 (56.6%) had endoscopic therapy and 106 (43.4%) were managed with medical therapy alone. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for older age in the endoscopic therapy group. Recurrence of bleeding within 7 days of endoscopy was significantly less frequent in the endoscopic therapy group than the medical therapy group (respectively, 8.7% vs. 27.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.07 95% CI [0.02, 0.22], p<0.001). Median hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days; p<0.001), median number of red blood cell transfusions after endoscopy (2.0 vs. 3.0 units; p=0.01), the need for repeat endoscopy (9.4% vs. 26.4%; p<0.001), and recurrent bleeding within 30 days (10.1% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001) were significantly lower in the endoscopic therapy group. In addition, the need for ulcer surgery (5.8% vs. 9.4%; p=0.28) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 7.5%; p=0.18) were lower in the endoscopic therapy group, although these differences were not statistically significant. Endoscopic complications were uncommon (1.4% vs. 0.9%; p=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination endoscopic treatment of ulcers with an adherent clot was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent ulcer hemorrhage compared with medical therapy alone. These findings confirm that the efficacy of combination endoscopic therapy demonstrated in carefully designed, randomized, controlled clinical trials can be reproduced when this technique is applied in a clinical practice setting. However, combination therapy did not significantly reduce the need for ulcer surgery or 30-day mortality.

Cost implications of administering intravenous proton pump inhibitors to all patients presenting to the emergency department with peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Administering proton pump inhibitors (PPI) intravenously (iv) after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers reduces the incidence of rebleeding, the need for operative procedures, and hospitalizations. We assessed the cost implications of iv PPI initiated in all patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with signs of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding.

METHODS

From a third-party payer perspective with a time horizon of 60 days, we built a decision analytic model comparing standard endoscopic therapy to a strategy in which all patients presenting to the ED with UGI bleeding would start iv PPI before endoscopy. After endoscopy, only those with peptic ulcers would be kept on iv PPI added to standard therapy. Probabilities of health events were extracted from published literature. Resource utilization profiles and costs (iv PPI, hospital stay for medical and operative procedures, and professional fees) were based on Medicare reimbursement data from a large hospital in Alabama. All costs were expressed in 2000 US dollars. Uncertainty was investigated through one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analyses using Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical group of 1000 individuals, routine use of iv PPI prevented 40 rebleeds, 9 surgical procedures, and 223 hospital days, and led to incremental savings of dollars 920 per subject. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the strategy of using iv PPI was likely to be dominant even when accounting for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, routine administration of iv PPI to all persons presenting with UGI bleeding represents good value for money and merits consideration as standard hospital policy.