Injection or heat probe for bleeding ulcer

Adverse events associated with the gold probe and the injection gold probe devices used for endoscopic hemostasis: A MAUDE database analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding accounts for over half a million admissions annually and is the most common GI diagnosis requiring hospitalization in the United States. Bipolar electrocoagulation devices are used for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is no data on device-related adverse events for gold probe (GP) and injection gold probe (IGP).

AIM

To analyze this using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA's) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2013 to 2023.

METHODS

We examined post-marketing surveillance data on GP and IGP from the FDA MAUDE database to report devicerelated and patient-related adverse events between 2013-2023. The MAUDE database is a publicly available resource providing over 4 million records relating to medical device safety. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics V.27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States).

RESULTS

Our search elicited 140 reports for GP and 202 reports for IGP, respectively, during the study period from January 2013 to August 2023. Malfunctions reportedly occurred in 130 cases for GP, and actual patient injury or event occurred in 10 patients. A total of 149 patients (74%) reported with Injection GP events suffered no significant consequences due to the device failure, but 53 patients (26%) were affected by an event.

CONCLUSION

GP and IGP are critical in managing gastrointestinal bleeding. This study of the FDA MAUDE database revealed the type, number, and trends of reported device-related adverse events. The endoscopist and support staff must be aware of these device-related events and be equipped to manage them if they occur.

Application of endoscopic purse-string sutures in high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: preliminary experience of 38 cases

OBJECTIVE

This study is a prospective study to explore the therapeutic effect of endoscopic purse-string sutures in high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected and analyzed data from July 2018 to December 2020 from patients in Jinshan hospital, Fudan University, who underwent emergency endoscopy for acute severe high-risk non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIB) and were treated with endoscopic purse-string sutures.

RESULTS

We included 38 patients whose median age was 64 years (interquartile range: 57.2 - 71.2 years). All patients were high risk gastric ulcer larger than 1 cm, including Forrest Ia (n = 4, 10.5%), Forrest Ib (n = 13, 34.2%) and Forrest IIa (n = 21, 55.3%). All patients were treated with endoscopic purse-string sutures. The clinical success rate reached 89.5%. Three patients suffered from rebleeding within seven days, and were treated with surgery or arterial embolization, respectively, all of which successfully stopped bleeding. One patient died of myocardial infarction. All other patients were followed up for 30 days without bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that endoscopic purse-string sutures seem to be safe and effective in the treatment of patients at high risk of ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Recent Advances

Bleeding peptic ulcers remained as one of the commonest causes of hospitalization worldwide. While endoscopic hemostasis serves as primary treatment for bleeding ulcers, rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis becomes more and more difficult to manage as patients are usually poor surgical candidates with multiple comorbidities. Recent advances in management of bleeding peptic ulcers aimed to further reduce the rate of rebleeding through-(1) identification of high risk patients for rebleeding and mortality; (2) improvement in primary endoscopic hemostasis and; (3) prophylactic angiographic embolization of major arteries. The technique and clinical evidences for these approaches will be reviewed in the current article.

Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: New Frontiers

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to blood loss from the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz due to lesions that are non-variceal in origin. The distinction of the bleeding source as non-variceal is important in numerous aspects, but none more so than endoscopic approaches for successful hemostasis. When a patient presents with acute overt blood loss, NVUGIB is a medical emergency, which requires immediate intervention. There have been major strides in pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for successful induction and remission of hemostasis in the last two decades. Despite achieving tangible improvements, the burden of the disease and the consequent mortality remain high. To address endoscopic outcomes better, several new technologies have emerged and have been subsequently incorporated to the armamentarium of hemostatic tools. This study aims to provide a succinct review on novel technologies for endoscopic hemostasis.

Comparison of monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation versus hemoclip for peptic ulcer bleeding: a randomized trial (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although various methods are used in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, there is not a standard recommended approach. The choice depends on multiple factors such as location of the ulcer, clinical experience of the endoscopist, and local facilities of the clinic. We aimed to compare the efficacy of monopolar hemostatic forceps soft coagulation (MHFSC) and hemoclips (HCs) in the treatment of peptic ulcer-related upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

The study group included patients who had GI bleeding due to Forrest 1a, 1b, and 2a gastric or duodenal ulcers within 1 year. Patients with bleeding diathesis, history of gastrectomy, pregnancy, or younger than age 18 years were excluded. The remaining were randomized to MHFSC and HC treatment groups and compared in terms of clinical and endoscopic features, initial hemostasis success rates, recurrent bleeding rates within the first 7 days, time to achieve hemostasis, length of hospitalization stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were randomized to MHFSC (n = 56) and HC (n = 56) groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to demographic features, medications, underlying chronic diseases, location, and Forrest classification of the ulcers. The initial hemostasis success rate was 98.2% (55/56) in the MHFSC group and 80.4% (45/56) in the HC group (P = .004). Recurrent bleeding was detected in 2 patients in the MHFSC group (3.6%) and 8 patients in the HC group (17.7%; P = .04). The duration of endoscopic procedures (302 ± 87.8 vs 568 ± 140.4 seconds) and the length of hospital stay (3.50 ± 1.03 vs 4.37 ± 1.86 days) were significantly shorter in the MHFSC group. There were no adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

MHFSC is more effective in achieving initial hemostasis compared with HCs in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and provides a shorter procedure time and a lower recurrent bleeding rate.

Endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer represents the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this review is to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, and CINAHL. We selected randomized clinical trials that assessed contemporary endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The outcomes evaluated were: initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality. The possibility of publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots. An additional analysis was made, including only the higher-quality trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 2988 patients were evaluated. Injection therapy alone was inferior to injection therapy with hemoclip and with thermal coagulation when evaluating rebleeding and the need for emergency surgery. Hemoclip was superior to injection therapy in terms of rebleeding; there were no statistically significant differences between hemoclip alone and hemoclip with injection therapy. There was considerable heterogeneity in the comparisons between hemoclip and thermal coagulation. There were no statistically significant differences between thermal coagulation and injection therapy, though their combination was superior, in terms of rebleeding, to thermal coagulation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection therapy should not be used alone. Hemoclip is superior to injection therapy, and combining hemoclip with an injectate does not improve hemostatic efficacy above hemoclip alone. Thermal coagulation has similar efficacy as injection therapy; combining these appears to be superior to thermal coagulation alone. Therefore, we recommend the application of hemoclips or the combined use of injection therapy with thermal coagulation for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal dieulafoy's lesions and endoscopie treatment: first report from a mexican centre

The aim was to evaluate the initial success, rebleeding rate, need for emergent surgery, and mortality rates of patients with Dieulafoy's lesion (DL) and endoscopic treatment (ET). Patients with DL from a tertiary center were included. We included 20 patients with follow-up of 90 (60-550) days. The lesser curvature was the most common localization. Initial success, rebleeding, and emergent surgery requirement were observed in 90%, 10%, and 15%, respectively. No objective variables were related with response to ET. In conclusion, ET is secure and useful in patients with DL and it must be considered as the first-line treatment modality.

The prognosis of patients having received optimal therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding might be worse in daily practice than in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Combination of endoscopic haemostatic and high-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors is considered to be the standard care for patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

AIM

This study assessed predictive factors of rebleeding and death in unselected patients presented to our hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with nonmalignant bleeding ulcers and stigmata of recent haemorrhage who received optimal treatment, between 22 August 2003 and 15 October 2007, were studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

Among 140 included patients, 45 (32%) rebled and 30 received another haemostatic endoscopy, which was successful in 20 cases. In multivariate analysis, the only significant predictive factor of rebleeding was duodenal site of the ulcer [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 2.75; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-6.19]. In-hospital death occurred in 27 (19%) patients; with five deaths related to uncontrolled or recurrent bleeding. In multivariate analysis, predictors of in-hospital mortality were rebleeding (adjusted OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.17-9.16), a Rockall score higher than 6 (adjusted OR: 9.12; 95% CI: 2.57-44.29) and bleeding occurring in the intensive care unit (adjusted OR: 15.68; 95% CI: 4.41-55.82).

CONCLUSION

In unselected patients, rebleeding and mortality rates are substantially higher than those found in prospective randomized clinical trials. Intensive care unit stay is an important predictive factor of hospital mortality and should be considered in further therapeutic trials in ulcer bleeding.

Marshall and Warren Lecture 2009: peptic ulcer bleeding: an expedition of 20 years from 1989-2009

Peptic ulcer bleeding is one of the most common medical emergencies leading to substantial mortality and morbidity. The last two decades has witnessed some important advances in the management of this condition, and some of these are results from clinical trials conducted in the Asia Pacific region. The optimal use of combined endoscopic hemostasis and the use of pharmacologic control of acid secretion in the stomach have significantly improved clinical outcome. The role of surgery has been redefined. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection and prophylactic treatment in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and anti-platelet users have made progress in preventing recurrence of peptic ulcer and bleeding. Instead of merely focusing on safety in the gastrointestinal tract, striking a balance between risk and benefit of continuing anti-platelet agents should be a top agenda.

Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Optimal endoscopic hemostasis remains undetermined. This was a systematic review of contemporary methods of endoscopic hemostasis for patients with bleeding ulcers that exhibited high-risk stigmata.

SETTING

Randomized trials that evaluated injection, thermocoagulation, clips, or combinations of these were evaluated from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (1990-2006).

PATIENTS

A total of 4261 patients were evaluated.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes were rebleeding (primary), surgery, and mortality (secondary). Summary statistics were determined; publication bias and heterogeneity were sought by using funnel plots or by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

Forty-one trials assessed 4261 patients. All endoscopic therapies decreased rebleeding versus pharmacotherapy alone, including sole intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibition (PPI) (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34-0.92]); only one trial assessed high-dose IV PPI. Injection alone was inferior compared with other methods, except for thermal hemostasis (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.40]), with a strong trend of increased rebleeding if 1 injectate is used rather than 2 (OR 1.40 [95% CI, 0.95-2.05]). Injection followed by thermal therapy did not decrease rebleeding compared with clips (OR 0.82 [95% CI, 0.28-2.38]) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.24-2.62]). Subgroup analysis, however, suggested that injection followed by thermal therapy was superior to thermal therapy alone. Clips were superior to thermal therapy (OR 0.24 [95% CI, 0.06-0.95]) but, when followed by injection, were not superior to clips alone (OR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.36-4.76]). Surgery or mortality was not altered in most comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

All endoscopic treatments are superior to pharmacotherapy alone; only 1 study assessed high-dose IV PPI. Optimal endoscopic therapies include thermal therapy or clips, either alone or in combination with other methods. Additional data are needed that compare injection followed by thermal therapy to clips alone or clips combined with another method.

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.

Hemostasis of Dieulafoy's lesions by argon plasma coagulation (with video)

BACKGROUND

A Dieulafoy's lesion is a submucosal artery that may erode the epithelium and lead to severe hemorrhages. The safety and efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) for the hemostasis of these lesions has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy of APC alone in the hemostasis of Dieulafoy's lesions.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of hemostasis by chart review, with long-term follow-up by outpatient visit or phone interview.

SETTING

An academic hospital with 24-hour endoscopic service availability.

PATIENTS

All patients with acute bleeding from a Dieulafoy's lesion treated with APC.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemostasis was attempted with 2.3-mm APC probes, with settings varying from 40 W to 60 W, according to lesion location.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality rates.

RESULTS

Twenty-three Dieulafoy's lesions were treated with APC, which represented 85% of all such lesions observed. Severe comorbidities and abnormal coagulation were present in 39% and 22%, respectively. Dieulafoy's lesions were located in the upper-GI tract in 20 patients (87%). Active bleeding was found in 20 patients (87%), a nonbleeding visible vessel was found in 2 patients (9%), and a minute mucosal defect below an adherent clot was found in 1 (4%). Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients, without complications. An injection of an average volume of 3 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine solution preceded APC in 3 cases for the identification of the bleeding lesion. Recurrent bleeding occurred in a patient after 48 hours; no bleeding-related deaths were observed during a median follow-up of 29 months.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Dieulafoy's lesions can be successfully managed by APC alone.

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.

Risk factors for bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection

AIM

To clarify the risk factors for bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

A total of 297 consecutive patients who underwent EMR were enrolled. Some of the patients had multiple lesions. Bleeding requiring endoscopic treatment was defined as bleeding after EMR. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated by logistic regression with multivariate adjustments for covariates, were the measures of association.

RESULTS

Of the 297 patients, 57 (19.2%) patients with bleeding after EMR were confirmed. With multivariate adjustment, the cutting method of EMR, diameter, and endoscopic pattern of the tumor were associated with the risk of bleeding after EMR. The multivariate-adjusted OR for bleeding after EMR using endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy was 3.07 (95%CI, 1.59-5.92) compared with strip biopsy. The multiple-adjusted OR for bleeding after EMR for the highest quartile (16-50 mm) of tumor diameter was 5.63 (95%CI, 1.84-17.23) compared with that for the lowest (4-7 mm). The multiple-adjusted OR for bleeding after EMR for depressed type of tumor was 4.21 (95%CI, 1.75-10.10) compared with elevated type.

CONCLUSION

It is important to take tumor characteristics (tumor size and endoscopic pattern) and cutting method of EMR into consideration in predicting bleeding after EMR.

Treating patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding or rebleeding

Despite advances in medical management, gastrointestinal bleeding remains a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality. At risk are patients with history of the event, those taking nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents, and those with active peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopy may be performed for diagnosis and treatment. Antisecretory therapy may be employed to control gastric acid secretion, treat active peptic ulcer disease, and control symptoms such as diarrhea and abdominal pain. Options for antisecretory therapy include histamine2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) that target the histamine pathway, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) that target the final step in acid secretion. The H2RAs generally are ineffective at reaching a target pH of 6 in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding because of tachyphylaxis. The PPIs are more effective and do not lead to tachyphylaxis. With the availability of an intravenous PPI, pantoprazole, options for managing hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are expanding.

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.

A prospective, randomized comparison of 10-Fr versus 7-Fr bipolar electrocoagulation catheter in combination with adrenaline injection in the endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers

OBJECTIVES

Our study compared the efficacy of bipolar electrocoagulation (gold probe) with 10-Fr (group A) versus 7-Fr (group B) catheter after adrenaline injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

A total of 77 consecutive patients with endoscopic evidence of peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to one of the above protocols. Thirty-nine patients (31 male, eight female, mean age 62 yr) were included in group A and 38 (28 male, 10 female, mean age 61 yr) in group B.

RESULTS

The initial hemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, duration of hospital stay, volume of blood transfused, number of operations needed, and number of deaths were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean number of electrocoagulations and the subsequent mean duration of electrocoagulations were significantly higher in group B patients (7.0 +/- 3.8 and 14.1 +/- 7.6 s, respectively) compared with those of group A (4.6 +/- 2.6 and 9.3 +/- 5.3 s, respectively) (p < 0.01). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, location of bleeding, ulcer size, endoscopic severity of bleeding, and the size of the gold probes, lesser endoscopic severity of bleeding (chi(2) = 31.1, p < 0.01), large size of the gold probe (chi(2) = 23.9, p < 0.01), and small ulcer size (chi(2) = 13.4, p < 0.01) were the only factors significantly associated with a smaller number of electrocoagulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the use of large-size gold probes was significantly associated with a lower number of electrocoagulations, resulting in the reduction of electrocoagulation duration. However, the clinical relevance of these findings is questionable because the efficacy of both sizes of gold probe after adrenaline injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers was similar.

Evaluation of endoscopic hemostasis with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer: comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol in a prospective, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Although metallic hemoclips have been used for hemostasis of bleeding ulcer, there have been few prospective trials to evaluate their efficacy. In this study, a prospective, randomized trial was performed to evaluate endoscopic hemoclipping for bleeding gastric ulcer in comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol.

METHODS

During the period 1995-1998, 126 gastric ulcer patients with bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessel were considered for entry. They were randomly assigned to one of three groups: endoscopic hemostasis performed with injection of absolute ethanol (group I, n = 42), hemoclipping (group II, n = 42), and a combination of the two methods (group III, n = 42).

RESULTS

The permanent hemostatic rate was 85.7% in group I, 90.5% in group II, and 92.9% in group III. The mean volume of blood transfusion was 313 +/- 77 ml in group I, 274 +/- 54 ml in group II, and 163 +/- 42 ml in group III, which was significantly less than in groups I or II (p < 0.05). No patients required emergency surgery. Five patients died within a month after initial hemostasis as a result of unrelated conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer was as effective and safe as that with injection of absolute ethanol, and a combination of ethanol injection and hemoclips did not result in a great advantage over the two individual procedures.

The role of acid suppression in the management and prevention of gastrointestinal hemorrhage associated with gastroduodenal ulcers

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a substantial source of morbidity and mortality in the ICU setting. Endoscopic injection with adrenaline and thermocoagulation is the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeds. To enhance healing and overcome limitations of endoscopic therapies, acid suppression therapy is recommended. Although results from a few studies do not support their use fully following an episode of acute UGI bleeding, PPIs have been used successfully to lower transfusion requirements and additional surgical procedures, reduce hospital stays, and lower medical costs. H2RAs and PPIs have a rapid onset of action when given intravenously; however, patients quickly become tolerant to the effects of H2RAs, generally requiring increased doses of medication after the first day of administration. PPIs provide persistent acid suppression, maintaining neutral gastric pH, especially during the critical first 72 hours following a bleed. Recent clinical studies further support their use in preventing bleeding in the clinical setting. Controversy exists over the utility of pharmacologically induced acid suppression in critically ill patients at risk for stress ulcers. Comparative pH studies, however, suggest that i.v. PPIs such as pantoprazole are more effective in raising intragastric pH than are H2RAs. Although the clinical benefits of PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis have not been established, there is a theoretical framework suggesting that they should be beneficial. Ongoing clinical studies should show whether the theoretical advantage translates into clinically meaningful benefits.

Monopolar coagulation versus conventional endoscopic treatment for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Severe upper GI hemorrhage from an actively bleeding peptic ulcer is sometimes difficult to treat by conventional endoscopic means, such as multipolar electrocoagulation, heat probe coagulation, and injection therapy. It was hypothesized that monopolar coagulation with a "hot biopsy" forceps may be more effective in such cases.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized trial was performed to assess the safety and short-term efficacy of monopolar coagulation versus conventional treatment (combination heat probe coagulation and injection therapy) in the treatment of patients with various types of actively bleeding or high-risk ulcers.

RESULTS

Primary hemostasis was achieved in 54 of 56 actively bleeding patients in the monopolar coagulation group. In contrast, primary hemostasis was achieved in 33 of 43 patients in the control group (p = 0.003), with 8 of the remaining 10 being treated successfully by crossover monopolar coagulation. During 30-day follow-up, bleeding recurred in 6 patients in the conventional therapy group versus none in the monopolar coagulation group (p = 0.012). Post-endoscopy blood transfusion requirements were lower in the monopolar coagulation group. Mortality and surgery rates were zero in both groups. There was no procedure-related complication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated improved primary hemostasis and a reduced short-term rate of recurrent bleeding for patients with actively bleeding and high-risk non-bleeding peptic ulcers treated by monopolar coagulation. The complication rate associated with monopolar coagulation was low.

A randomized trial comparing heater probe plus thrombin with heater probe plus placebo for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial compared the efficacy of combined endoscopic hemostatic treatment using the heater probe plus thrombin injection with that of the heater probe plus placebo injection as treatment for peptic ulcers with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels. Efficacy was defined in terms of primary hemostasis, prevention of rebleeding, and need for urgent surgery.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-seven patients presenting with major peptic ulcer bleeding were randomized to heater probe plus thrombin or to heater probe plus placebo. The groups were well matched for all risk categories including age, endoscopic stigmata, shock, and severity of comorbid diseases. Endoscopic therapy was applied using the heater probe followed by injection of thrombin or placebo.

RESULTS

Successful primary hemostasis was achieved in 97% of patients. Rebleeding developed in 19 (15%) of thrombin plus heater probe patients and 17 (15%) of placebo plus heater probe patients. Emergency surgery was necessary in 16 and 13 patients, respectively. Eight patients in the thrombin group had adverse events compared with 4 in the placebo group. Eight (6%) of thrombin plus heater probe patients and 14 (12%) of placebo plus heater probe patients died (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of thrombin and the heater probe does not confer an additional benefit over heater probe and placebo as endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Our trial does not support the use of this combination of hemostatic therapy.

N/A

N/A

Short-term and long-term benefits of endoscopic hemoclip application for Dieulafoy's lesion in the upper GI tract

BACKGROUND

Dieulafoy's lesion is an important cause of GI bleeding. The results of hemoclip application as the first treatment of choice for Dieulafoy's lesions have not been reported. This study prospectively examined the short- and long-term outcomes of hemoclip application for Dieulafoy's lesions.

METHODS

The study was conducted over a 7-year period beginning in January 1995 during which hemoclip application was used as the first-choice hemostatic treatment for Dieulafoy's lesions. Clinical data, endoscopic findings, and outcome of treatment were evaluated. Long-term outcome for patients was also investigated.

RESULTS

A Dieulafoy's lesion was diagnosed in 34 patients (27 men, 7 women; mean age, 54 years, range 21-81 years) after a mean of 1.2 endoscopies; 79.4% of the patients had active bleeding. Initial hemostasis was attained by hemoclip placement in 94.1%. The rate of recurrent bleeding was 9.3%. No patient required additional treatment such as surgery. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.9% (1 death, unrelated). For the remaining 33 patients, median follow-up was 53.8 months (range 19 to 90 months). Another Dieulafoy's lesion developed in one patient during follow-up, but in a different location compared with the index lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemoclip application for Dieulafoy's lesions was effective and safe with short- and long-term benefits.

Endoscopic hemostasis of a bleeding marginal ulcer: hemoclipping or dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic hemoclipping and dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation have been proven effective in the hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers. However, the hemostatic efficacy has not been investigated in bleeding marginal ulcers. The aim of this study is to investigate the hemostatic efficacy of endoscopic hemoclipping and dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation in bleeding marginal ulcers.

METHODS

From November 1997 to July 2000, 50 patients with active marginal ulcer bleeding underwent either hemoclipping (20 patients) or dual therapy (30 patients) for hemostasis. The demographic data, clinicopathological characteristics, endoscopic findings, initial hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, amount of blood transfusion, the need of surgery, and mortality rates were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Marginal ulcers were located at the anastomotic site (64%), saddle portion (22%), efferent loop (10%), or at the afferent loop (4%). The bleeding stigmata were classified into spurting artery (32%), oozing vessel (38%), visible vessel (20%), and blood clot adhesion (10%). The overall therapeutic results in 50 patients were initial hemostasis (100%), rebleeding rate (22%), need for surgery (4%), and hospital mortality rate (4%). There was no significant difference in demographic data and clinicopathological characteristics between the two modes of treatments, whereas recurrent bleeding developed in 5% in the hemoclipping group and 33% in the dual therapy group. No complication related to the procedure occurred in either mode of therapy. The hospital mortality rates were 0 and 6.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy is effective in achieving initial hemostasis from bleeding marginal ulcers. However, the rebleeding rate remains high and repeated endoscopy may be needed to arrest the hemorrhage.

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.

Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Upper endoscopy to assess the risk of rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding may be used for triage, allowing outpatient care of selected patients and leading to significant cost savings. Over the last 10 years, hospitalization days required for upper gastrointestinal bleeding have decreased significantly and the majority of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of admission. Twenty percent to 35% of these endoscopies include endoscopic hemostatic therapy. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for actively bleeding (ie, spurting or oozing) visible vessels and nonbleeding visible vessels that are raised and cannot be washed off. Endoscopic methods can be divided into thermal (multipolar coagulation, heater probe, argon plasma coagulator, Nd:YAG laser) and nonthermal (eg, injection therapy); both types are effective. A combination of injection and thermal therapy with initial injection to slow the bleeding or "clear the field" followed by coagulation of the identified vessel is popular. Bleeding recurs in 15% of patients. A recent randomized controlled trial of repeat endoscopic treatment versus surgery for patients with recurrent ulcer bleeding concluded that endoscopic retreatment is superior to surgery. Most peptic ulcer rebleeding occurs within the first 3 days of presentation. A comparison of omeprazole and placebo therapy in high-risk ulcer patients with bleeding stigmata at endoscopy who were not treated endoscopically found that high-dosage omeprazole (40 mg twice a day) significantly lowered the rates of further bleeding and surgical intervention. Although unlikely to replace endoscopic therapy, this study demonstrated the efficacy of potent acid suppression, perhaps due to stabilization of clotting activity. A recent placebo-controlled trial of high-dosage parenteral omeprazole after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers demonstrated a substantial reduction in the risk of rebleeding.

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.

Does gastroenterology consultation change management of patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Gastrointestinal complications following hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (HSCTs) are common, but it is unknown how often gastroenterology consultation (GEC) early post BMT leads to specific changes in patient management. We aimed to determine the reason(s) for GEC, the diagnoses found through GEC, whether the advice or intervention led to change(s) in management and if intervention led to any adverse outcome within the first 100 days post HSCT. We undertook a retrospective review of all patients at least 18 years old (n = 197) who underwent HSCT between November 1990 and April 1998. Of these, 79 patients had 92 consultations for a total of 163 separate GE problems within the first 100 days post HSCT. Data were obtained through chart review. It was determined whether the intervention or advice given by the consultant led to actual changes in patient management or outcome. We found that the characteristics more likely to be associated with GEC included female patient vs male (P = 0.03), allogeneic vs autologous transplants (P < 0.001), hematologic vs solid malignancies (P = 0.006), and leukemias vs lymphomas (P = 0.013). Overall, a definitive diagnosis for an identified complaint was made in 71% (range 25-87%). A change in management was effected in 54% of cases (range 0-59%). Endoscopy led to perforation and subsequent death in two patients (1.8%). Gastrointestinal disease was a direct cause of death in 2.5% of all patients. In conclusion, a definite diagnosis was reached in 71% of gastrointestinal problems and management was effected in 54% of cases. Since endoscopy was associated with a mortality of 1.8%, minimizing its use for the cases in which no impact is made, should be considered.

Endoscopic hemoclipping for upper GI bleeding due to Mallory-Weiss syndrome

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemoclipping is known to be highly effective as hemostatic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the efficacy and safety of hemoclipping for Mallory-Weiss syndrome (MWS) have not been reported. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess prospectively the usefulness of endoscopic hemoclipping for MWS bleeding.

METHODS

This study was conducted from January 1994 to August 1999. Hemoclipping was performed when active bleeding (spurting, streaming or oozing), visible vessels or fresh adhesive clots were found on endoscopic examination. Patients who did not have any of these findings were conservatively treated. Follow-up endoscopy was performed within 24 hours, after 5 days and between 1 and 2 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

MWS was diagnosed in a total of 58 patients during the study. Hemoclipping was performed in 26 patients and was technically successful in all cases. The average number of hemoclips used was 2.8 +/- 1.6 (range 1 to 8). The number of hemoclips required for hemostasis depended on the nature of the bleeding. No complications, recurrent bleeding, or deaths resulted. Follow-up endoscopy showed no evidence of hemoclip-induced tissue injury and no impairment of Mallory-Weiss tears.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemoclipping provided an effective and safe modality for obtaining hemostasis when bleeding is due to MWS.

Endoclips versus heater probe in preventing early recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer: a prospective and randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic application of hemoclips (HC) was prospectively compared with heat probe (HP) treatment in patients with bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

One hundred thirteen patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage were randomly assigned to receive HP (n = 57) or HC (n = 56). Clinical and endoscopic features were comparable in both groups. Recurrent bleeding was retreated with the modality previously used. Patients in whom treatment or retreatment was unsuccessful underwent emergency surgery.

RESULTS

Hemostasis, adequate treatment of visible vessel, 30-day mortality, and emergency surgery rates were similar for both groups. Recurrent bleeding was 21% for HP and 1.8% for HC (p < 0.05). Length of hospital stay and transfusion requirements were significantly lower in the HC group. There was no evidence of clip-induced tissue injury or impaired ulcer healing. Clips dislodged spontaneously in most patients within 8 weeks of treatment. No further hemorrhage occurred on a median follow-up of 11 months (range 1-23).

CONCLUSIONS

The hemoclip is safe and effective in the treatment of severe ulcer bleeding and is superior to HP in preventing early recurrent bleeding.

Peptic ulcer bleeding: comparison of two hemostatic procedures

OBJECTIVE

Bleeding is a serious complication of peptic ulcer. Endoscopic injection therapy is accepted as a homeostatic endoscopic treatment in acute nonvariceal of upper GI hemorrhages, particularly in bleeding peptic ulcers. The risk of rebleeding is predicted by the endoscopic appearance of ulcer features classified according to Forrest's criteria.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-three patients were selected from 1,003 emergency upper endoscopies for GI bleeding. According to Forrest's criteria, 99 well-matched patients with ulcers F1 and F2 were considered at risk of rebleeding; 54 patients (group A) received local ulcer injection of epinephrine solution 1:10,000, whereas (group B) patients were treated with local epinephrine injection and then with endoscopic Hemoclips. (1) We considered the control of bleeding, the number of rebleeding episodes, the need for emergency surgery, and mortality.

RESULTS

Bleeding ulcers stopped completely in 83.3% group A patients, and in 95.6% group B patients (p = not significant). In a subset of F1b patients the rebleeding rate was 31 % for group A and 0% for group B (p < 0.05). There was no mortality as a result of the procedure. There was a trend toward reducing surgery in favor of the combined therapy (0% vs 7.4%). No differences were found in transfusion requirements or mean hospitalization days.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that endoscopic injection of l:10,000 epinephrine solution alone and epinephrine solution plus application of Hemoclips are equivalent therapies in treating bleeding and rebleeding from peptic ulcers. There was no difference between therapies in terms of need for surgery or mortality. Possibly combination therapy is more effective in treating ulcers that are actively oozing.

Role of Doppler US in acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage: can it predict failure of endoscopic therapy?

BACKGROUND

Recurrent bleeding after successful primary endoscopic hemostasis of acutely bleeding ulcers is a significant problem. This study evaluates endoscopic Doppler ultrasound (US) in assessing risk of recurrent bleeding in patients presenting with acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind, nonrandomized trial, patients were enrolled from a single academic institution. Only patients with endoscopically confirmed gastric, duodenal, pyloric, or anastomotic ulcers were enrolled. The therapeutic endoscopist was blinded to the Doppler US signal from the ulcer and based treatment decisions on standard guidelines. A 16 MHz pulsed-wave, linear scanning, US probe was used through the accessory channel of an endoscope to assess for the presence of a Doppler signal.

RESULTS

Fifty-two of 139 screened patients entered the trial (55 Doppler sessions). Endoscopic therapy was performed in 42% (30-day recurrent bleeding rate of 17%). Ulcers that remained persistently Doppler positive immediately after endoscopic therapy had a significantly higher rate of recurrent bleeding than ulcers where the Doppler signal was abolished: 100% versus 11% (p = 0.003). There were no bleeding-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

A persistently positive Doppler US signal appears to be a marker of inadequate endoscopic therapy in patients with acutely bleeding peptic ulcers.

Interventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic surgery

Interventional endoscopic techniques have been indespensible in almost every area of modern surgery. As surgeons, we need to continue to advance our skills in these areas if we expect to continue to be involved in these aspects of patient care.

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.

Thermal probes alone or with epinephrine for the endoscopic haemostasis of ulcer haemorrhage

In the last two decades, significant progress has been made in the diagnosis, prognostication and treatment of patients with severe peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Patients can now be risk stratified by clinical presentation and endoscopic stigmata of ulcer haemorrhage. The purposes of this chapter are to discuss: (1) the techniques of thermal probe with or without epinephrine for haemostasis of ulcers with major stigmata of haemorrhage and (2) the outcomes of treatment of patients with ulcer haemorrhage treated with endoscopic thermal probes or other therapies, medical therapy and/or surgery. Compared to medical therapy alone, patients with major stigmata actively bleeding ulcers, non-bleeding visible vessels and non-bleeding adherent clots have been shown to benefit from endoscopic haemostasis with bipolar probe, heater probe, lasers or epinephrine injection. Outcomes showing significant improvement include blood transfusions, emergency surgery rates and length of hospital stay. Meta-analyses have also reported improvements in mortality for endoscopic compared with medical therapy of patients with severe ulcer haemorrhage and major stigmata. Patients with minor stigmata of ulcer haemorrhage (such as flat spots) or no stigmata (clean-based ulcers) do not benefit from endoscopic haemostasis. Thermal probes have the advantages of good coaptive coagulation, target irrigation, portability and relative inexpense. Recently, patients with active arterial bleeding, non-bleeding adherent clots or non-bleeding visible vessels have been reported to have better results with combination epinephrine injection and thermal probe compared to monotherapy alone (such as injection, bipolar or heater probe). In addition, repeat endoscopic combination therapy has been reported to be as effective but safer than emergency surgery for management of recurrent ulcer haemorrhage.