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

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding management

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is one of the challenging situations in clinical practice. Despite that gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer are still the main causes of acute NVUGIB, there are other causes of bleeding which might not always be detected through the standard endoscopic evaluation. Standard endoscopic management of UGIB consists of injection, thermal coagulation, hemoclips, and combination therapy. However, these methods are not always successful for rebleeding prevention. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been used recently for portal hypertension management, especially in managing acute variceal bleeding. EUS has been considered a better tool to visualize the bleeding vessel in gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. There have been studies looking at the role of EUS for managing NVUGIB; however, most of them are case reports. Therefore, it is important to review back to see the evolution and innovation of endoscopic treatment for NVUGIB and the role of EUS for possibility to replace the standard endoscopic haemostasis management in daily practice.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders.

METHODS

This was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of -0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled).

RESULTS

100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03160911.

Comparison of high and low-dose epinephrine & endoclip application in peptic ulcer bleeding: A case series analysis observational study

Peptic ulcer disease accounts for 50% to 70% of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. There is no consensus on the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) using endoscopic techniques. This study aimed to compare endoscopic techniques for PUB.Patients with PUB who were hospitalized between January 2014 and June 2020 were included in this study. They were divided into 3 groups: endoclip and low-dose epinephrine injection (0-2 mg, Group 1, n = 62), endoclip and high-dose epinephrine injection (2-4 mg, Group 2, n = 54), and endoclip only (Group 3, n = 64).Early bleeding and permanent hemostasis were higher in Group 2 (P = .014, .035). When evaluated in terms of late hemostasis and urgent surgical need, there was no significant difference between the groups (P > .05). Group 2 received a higher amount of blood. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 16.5%, 22.2%, and 9.4% of patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 2 had a longer hospital stay than Groups 1 and 3 (P = .008). The endoscopic success rates were 80.6%, 72.2%, and 90.6% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively.In PUB, if the patient's Rockall score is high and the ulcer size is larger than 2 cm, endoclip application can be used as the main treatment. Addition of epinephrine may be considered when necessary.

Spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope in the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Systematically assessing the safety and effectiveness of spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope for the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and confirmation for further clinical research and application.

METHODS

We searched the following databases up till November 2019: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were used to compare the curative effect of spraying rhubarb powder solution with other drugs under gastroscope for the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

Out of 171 articles, 14 RCTs involving 1493 patients were included. All control groups included in the RCTs were treated with norepinephrine solution. The hemostatic effect of spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope was examined for 24 h at high concentration (0.1 g/mL). The hemostatic effect at higher conc. (0.1 g/mL) found far more better than low conc.(RR = 1.48;95 %CI:1.25,1.75;P﹤0.00001) (0.03 g/mL)as homeostatic effect at low conc.is same that of norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.02;95 %CI:0.94,1.10;P = 0.62). Moreover within 48 h, rhubarb powder solution with 0.1 g/mL or 0.15 g/mL conc. have of significantly higher hemostatic effects than norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.18;95 % CI: 1.08, 1.30;P = 0.0003). Occurrence of rebleeding event within 48 h after successful hemostasis (RR = 0.42;95 %CI:0.24,0.74;P = 0.003) reduced exceptionally. After that the hemostatic effect of rhubarb powder solution with 0.1 g/mL conc.examined within 72 h again exhibited significant improvement than norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.19;95 %CI:1.12,1.26;P < 0.00001). On par with immediate hemostasis time, rhubarb powder solution took unprecedented less time than norepinephrine solution;(MD=-5.56S;95 %CI:-6.16, -4.95;P﹤0.00001). Additionally, the adverse reaction produced by rhubarb powder solution is much lower than norepinephrine solution (RR = 0.22;95 %CI:0.11,0.42;P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to meta-analysis, Spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope in the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding is superior to norepinephrine solution in improving hemostasis effect. Shortening immediate hemostasis time and reducing rebleeding,and is safe to use. Based on the results of this study, physicians can treat patients with acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding by spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope according to the patients' condition.However, the sample size included in this study is small and of substandard quality qu, and a large sample size clinical trial with strict design and normative report is needed to verify the safety and efficacy of rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope for acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Clinical outcomes of over-the-scope-clip system for the treatment of acute upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic treatments can't control bleeding in as many as 20% of patients with non-variceal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Recent studies have shown that over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) system allowed for effective hemostasis for refractory GI bleeding lesions. So we aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the OTSC system for management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library covering the period from January 2007 to May 2019. The literature was selected independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies including 769 patients with 778 GI bleeding lesions were identified. Pooled technical success was achieved in 761 lesions [95.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 93.5-97.2%], and the pooled clinical success was achieved in 666 lesions (84.2, 95% CI, 77.4-89.2%). The incidence of re-bleeding was reported in 81 patients and the post-procedure mortality was 10.9% (n = 84). Only 2 (0.3%) patients occurred complications after OTSC system procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the OTSC system was a technically feasible modality and highly efficacious in achieving hemostasis in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Efficacy of Therapeutic Endoscopy for Gastrointestinal Lesion (GI): A network meta-analysis

Objective:

Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy for GI bleeding.

Methods:

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE. We selected all available clinical studies published after 2000 that assessed efficacy and/or safety of different endoscopic hemostatic techniques in treating GI bleeding. The outcomes evaluated included initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Network meta-analyses were performed to summarize the treatment effects.

Results:

Total 20 studies involving 1845 patients were evaluated. Ten different treatment categories including mechanic, ablative, injection, and combined therapy were compared in our analysis in terms of their efficacy in stopping bleeding and complications. Band ligation [rate: 0.757; 95% Credible Interval (0.565, 0.887)] and injection therapy [rate: 0.891; 95% CI (0.791, 0.944)] had inferior efficacy in attaining initial hemostasis compared to others. Combined therapy of band ligation and HPC and hemoclip may represent the best options for preventing rebleeding and mortality respectively. No significant difference was found among other treatments in terms of complications.

Conclusions:

We recommend the application of hemoclips in treating GI bleeding due to its high hemostasis efficacy and low risk of 30-day mortality.

Efficacy of Over-the-Scope Clips in Management of High-Risk Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Standard endoscopic therapies do not control bleeding or produce complications in as many as 20% of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Most bleeding comes from ulcers with characteristics such as high-risk vascular territories and/or large vessels. We evaluated the efficacy of using over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as primary or rescue therapy for patients with bleeding from lesions that have a high risk for adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 67 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding from high-risk lesions who were treated with OTSCs as primary (n = 49) or rescue therapy (n = 18) at a quaternary center, from December 2011 through February 2015. The definition of high-risk lesions was lesions that were situated in the area of a major artery and larger than 2 mm in diameter and/or a deep penetrating, excavated, fibrotic ulcer with high-risk stigmata, in which a perforation could not be ruled out or thermal therapy would cause perforation, or lesions that could not be treated by standard endoscopy. Clinical severity was determined based on the Rockall score and a modified Blatchford score. Our primary outcome was the incidence of rebleeding within 30 days after OTSC placement. We assessed risk factors for rebleeding using univariate hazard models followed by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 67 patients, 47 (70.1%) remained free of rebleeding at 30 days after OTSC placement. We found no difference in the proportion of patients with rebleeding who received primary or rescue therapy (hazard ratio, 0.639; 95% confidence interval, 0.084-4.860; P = .6653). Only 9 rebleeding events were linked clearly to OTSCs and required intervention, indicating an OTSC success rate of 81.3%. We found no significant associations between rebleeding and clinical scores. However, on multivariable analysis, patients with coronary artery disease had a higher risk of rebleeding after OTSC independent of international normalized ratio and antiplatelet use (hazard ratio, 7.30; P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of 67 patients with bleeding from high-risk gastrointestinal lesions, we found OTSCs to prevent rebleeding in more than 80% of cases. In the past, these lesions were treated with surgical or radiologic interventions. Patients with coronary artery disease have an increased risk of rebleeding after OTSCs, suggesting the need for escalated therapies.

TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Preliminary studies on a new topical hemostatic agent, TC-325, have shown its safety and effectiveness in treating active upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, to date there have been no randomized trials comparing TC-325 with the conventional combined technique (CCT). Our pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TC-325 with those of CCT in treating peptic ulcers with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata.

METHODS

This was a comparative randomized study of patients with upper GI bleeding who had Forrest class I, IIA or IIB ulcers.

RESULTS

Altogether 20 patients with a mean age of 70 years (range 23-87 years) were recruited, including 16 men, with a mean hemoglobin of 97 g/L. Initial hemostasis was successful in 19 (95.0%) patients, including 90.0% (9/10) in the TC-325 group and 100% (10/10) in the CCT group. TC-325 monotherapy failed to stop bleeding in a patient with Forrest IB posterior duodenal wall ulcer. Rebleeding was seen in 33.3% (3/9) of the patients in the TC-325 group and 10.0% (1/10) in the CCT group. One patient required angio-embolization therapy while three had successful conventional endotherapy. Two patients from the TC-325 group had serious adverse events that were not procedure- or therapy-related. In patients with Forrest IIA or IIB ulcers, five received TC-325 monotherapy; none had rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot study showed that TC-325 has a tendency towards a higher rebleeding rate than CCT, when treating actively bleeding ulcers. Larger trials are necessary for definitive results.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07-0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01-0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10-0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16-1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19-2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03-1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality.

Independent risk factors of 30-day outcomes in 1264 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding in the USA: large ulcers do worse

BACKGROUND

Predictors of worse outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and death) of peptic ulcer bleeds (PUBs) are essential indicators because of significant morbidity and mortality rates of PUBs. However those have been infrequently reported since changes in medical therapy (PPI, proton pump inhibitors) and application of newer endoscopic haemostatic technique.

AIMS

To determine: (i) independent risk factors for 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death and (ii) whether ulcer size is an independent predictor of major outcomes in patients with severe PUB after successful endoscopic haemostasis and treatment with optimal medical (high dose IV PPI) vs. prior treatment (high dose IV histamine 2 antagonists - H2RAs).

METHODS

A large prospectively followed population of patients hospitalised with severe PUBs between 1993 and 2011 at two US tertiary care academic medical centres, stratified by stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) was studied. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, independent risk factors for each outcome (rebleeding, surgery and death) up to 30 days were analysed. Effects for medical treatment (H2RA patients 1993-2005 vs. PPIs 2006-2011) were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1264 patients were included. For ulcers ≥10 mm, the odds of 30-day rebleeding increased 6% per each 10% increase in ulcer size (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.0053). Other risk factors for 30-day rebleeding were major SRH, in-patient start of bleeding, and prior GI bleeding. Major SRH and ulcer size≥10 mm were predictors of 30-day surgery. Risk factors for 30-day death were major SRH, in-patient bleeding, and any initial platelet transfusion or fresh frozen plasma transfusion ≥2 units. Among patients with major SRH and out-patient start of bleeding, larger ulcer size was also a risk factor for death (OR 1.08 per 10% increase in ulcer size, 95% CI 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0095). Ulcer size was a significant independent variable for both time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size is a risk factor for worse outcomes after PUB and should be carefully recorded at initial endoscopy to improve patient triage and management.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children

This article provides an overview of the evaluation and management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in children. The common etiologies at different ages are reviewed. Conditions with endoscopic importance for diagnosis or therapy include solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, polyps, vascular lesions, and colonic inflammation and ulceration. Diagnostic modalities for identifying causes of LGIB in children include endoscopy and colonoscopy, cross-sectional and nuclear medicine imaging, video capsule endoscopy, and enteroscopy. Pre-endoscopic preparation and decision-making unique to pediatrics is highlighted. The authors conclude with a summary of current and emerging therapeutic hemostatic techniques that can be used in pediatric patients.

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 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.

[Comparison on Endoscopic Hemoclip and Hemoclip Combination Therapy in Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients Based on Clinical Practice Data: Is There Difference between Prospective Cohort Study and Randomized Study?]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective and safe method of endoscopic hemostasis. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study on hemoclip and hemoclip combination therapy based on prospective cohort database in terms of hemostatic efficacy not in clinical trial but in real clinical practice.

METHODS

Data on endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) were prospectively collected from February 2011 to December 2013. Among 1,584 patients with NVUGIB, 186 patients treated with hemoclip were enrolled in this study. Subjects were divided into three groups: Group 1 (n = 62), hemoclipping only; group 2 (n = 88), hemoclipping plus epinephrine injection; and group 3 (n = 36), hemocliping and epinephrine injection plus other endoscopic hemostatic modalities. Primary outcomes included rebleeding, other therapeutic management, hospitalization period, fasting period and mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding associated mortality and overall mortality.

RESULTS

Active bleeding and peptic ulcer bleeding were more common in group 3 than in group 1 and in group 2 (p <œ 0.001). However, primary outcomes (rebleeding, other management, morbidity, hospitalization period, fasting period and mortality) and secondary outcomes (bleeding associated mortality and total mortality) were not different among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy of epinephrine injection and other modalities with hemoclips did not show advantage over hemoclipping alone in this prospective cohort study. However, there is a tendency to perform combination therapy in active bleeding which resulted in equivalent hemostatic success rate, and this reflects the role of combination therapy in clinical practice.

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.

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.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy of argon plasma coagulation with and without distilled water injection in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

Background. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is useful to treat upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but its hemostatic efficacy has received little attention. Aims. This investigation attempted to determine whether additional endoscopic injection before APC could improve hemostatic efficacy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Methods. From January 2007 to April 2011, adult patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were included. This investigation compared APC plus distilled water injection (combined group) to APC alone for treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Outcomes were assessed based on initial hemostasis, surgery, blood transfusion, hospital stay, rebleeding, and mortality at 30 days posttreatment. Results. Totally 120 selected patients were analyzed. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 59 patients treated with combined therapy and 57 patients treated with APC alone. No significant differences were noted between these groups in recurred bleeding, emergency surgery, 30-day mortality, hospital stay, or transfusion requirements. Comparing the combined end point of mortality plus the failure of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and the need for surgery revealed an advantage for the combined group (P = 0.040). Conclusions. Endoscopic therapy with APC plus distilled water injection was no more effective than APC alone in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers, whereas combined therapy was potentially superior for patients with poor overall outcomes.

Consensus on control of risky nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Taiwan with National Health Insurance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compose upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) consensus from a nationwide scale to improve the control of UGIB, especially for the high-risk comorbidity group.

METHODS

The steering committee defined the consensus scope to cover preendoscopy, endoscopy, postendoscopy, and overview from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) assessments for UGIB. The expert group comprised thirty-two Taiwan experts of UGIB to conduct the consensus conference by a modified Delphi process through two separate iterations to modify the draft statements and to vote anonymously to reach consensus with an agreement ≥80% for each statement and to set the recommendation grade.

RESULTS

The consensus included 17 statements to highlight that patients with comorbidities, including liver cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease, probable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, are at high risk of peptic ulcer bleeding and rebleeding. Special considerations are recommended for such risky patients, including raising hematocrit to 30% in uremia or acute myocardial infarction, aggressive acid secretory control in high Rockall scores, monitoring delayed rebleeding in uremia or cirrhosis, considering cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors plus PPI for pain control, and early resumption of antiplatelets plus PPI in coronary artery disease or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus comprises recommendations to improve care of UGIB, especially for high-risk comorbidities.

Optimal nonsurgical management of peptic ulcer bleeding, including arterial embolization is associated with a mortality below 1%

BACKGROUND

Management of high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) consists in a high-dose infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with double endoscopic treatment. If bleeding recurs, a second endoscopic treatment is required. Surgical management should be performed in case of endoscopic treatment failure, or if a second rebleeding occurs. Arterial embolization of PUB has been shown efficient and safe in small retrospective series, but optimal medical treatment was not used.

OBJECTIVE

Prospective assessment of the feasibility and the efficacy of arterial embolization of endoscopically unmanageable PUB, after optimal medical treatment.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients referred to our intensive care unit (ICU) for high-risk PUB received high-dose PPIs and underwent double endoscopic treatment when possible. Arterial embolization was proposed in primary failure to endoscopic treatment, in case of failure of the second endoscopic treatment, or if a second recurrence occurred.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-eight patients with PUB were enrolled between January 2008 and December 2009. Arterial embolization, performed in 11 patients, was efficient in nine patients. Surgery was performed in two patients (one after inefficient embolization, and one with embolization-related complication). One patient died during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Arterial embolization seems to be efficient for endoscopically unmanageable PUB. In our series, one patient developed severe complication related to the procedure and died. If arterial embolization could be proposed before surgery in case of refractory PUB, large prospective studies are needed.

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.

Early angiographic embolization is more effective than delayed angiographic embolization in patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Though angiographic embolization (AE) is a type of effective treatment modality for duodenal ulcer bleeding, the optimum time at which to perform the procedure, early or delayed, is unknown. The authors compared the prognosis of early AE (EAE) and delayed AE (DAE) in patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 54 patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding were evaluated with first-look endoscopy followed by AE. The patients were divided into two groups, the EAE group and DAE group, according to endoscopic attempts to stop the bleeding during the first-look endoscopy.

RESULTS

The success rate of AE, rebleeding rate, and number of patients who underwent surgery was not significantly different between the EAE group and DAE group (91.3% vs 93.5%, 21.7% vs 29.0% and 4.3% vs 16.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). With respect to death and intensive care unit (ICU) care rate, multivariate analysis showed more favorable results in the EAE group (0% vs 22.6%, P = 0.016 and 4.3% vs 57.4%, P = 0.003, respectively). Multivariate analysis also showed that prolonged prothrombin time (PT) > 1.2 international normalized ratio and the endoscopic attempt were independent factors associated with ICU care.

CONCLUSION

When the AE was performed early with correction for prolonged PT, the patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding had a more favorable prognosis.

Management of peptic ulcer bleeding in different case volume workplaces: results of a nationwide inquiry in hungary

The aim of this study was to conduct a national survey to evaluate the recent endoscopic treatment and drug therapy of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients and to compare practices in high and low case volume Hungarian workplaces. A total of 62 gastroenterology units participated in the six-month study. A total of 3033 PUB cases and a mean of 8.15 ± 3.9 PUB cases per month per unit were reported. In the 23 high case volume units (HCV), there was a mean of 12.9 ± 5.4 PUB cases/month, whereas in the 39 low case volume units (LCV), a mean of 5.3 ± 2.9 PUB cases/month were treated during the study period. In HCV units, endoscopic therapies for Forrest Ia, Ib, and IIa ulcers were significantly more often used than in LCV units (86% versus 68%; P = 0.001). Among patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage (Forrest I, II), bolus + continuous infusion PPI was given significantly more frequently in HCV than in LCV units (49.6% versus 33.2%; P = 0.001). Mortality in HCV units was less than in LCV units (2.7% versus 4.3%; P = 0.023). The penetration of evidence-based recommendations for PUB management is stronger in HCV units resulting lower mortality.

Endoscopic treatment of 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. Large-channel therapeutic endoscopes are recommended. Endoscopists should be very experienced in management of patients with UGI hemorrhage, including the use of various hemostatic devices. 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 coaptive coagulation (with multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy with endoscopic hemostasis of major stigmata. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic therapy and should be triaged to less intensive care and be considered for early discharge. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce cost of medical care.

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.

[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.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.

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.

How evidence-based are current guidelines for managing patients with peptic ulcer bleeding?

Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2-receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. However, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs oral). There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a significant benefit of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Presently, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for argon plasma coagulation and distilled water injection in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment is recommended for initial hemostasis in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Many endoscopic devices have been demonstrated to be effective in the hemostasis of bleeding ulcers. However, the hemostatic efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) has not been widely investigated.

STUDY

From February 2007 to February 2008, 271 consecutive patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers, characterized by active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels and adherent clots, were admitted to our hospital. Among these patients, 135 nonrandomly underwent either APC therapy or distilled water injection. Pantoprazole infusion was conducted during the fasting period after endoscopy and orally for 8 weeks to encourage ulcer healing. Episodes of rebleeding were retreated with endoscopic combination therapy. Patients who did not benefit from retreatment underwent emergency surgery.

RESULTS

In all,135 patients were enrolled, among whom 6 with gastric malignancy, acute severe illness or multiple bleeding sites were excluded. Finally, hemostatic efficacy in 59 patients treated with APC was prospectively compared with 70 patients treated with distilled water injection. The two treatment groups were similar with respect to all baseline characteristics. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 57 patients treated with APC, and 64 patients with distilled water injection therapy (97% vs. 91%, P=0.29). Bleeding recurred in 6 patients treated with APC, and in 17 patients treated with distilled water injection (11% vs. 27%, P=0.03). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in hospital stay, transfusion requirements, surgery and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy with APC is more effective than distilled water injection for preventing rebleeding in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Adrenaline injection plus argon plasma coagulation versus adrenaline injection plus hemoclips for treating high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Several combination endoscopic therapies are currently in use. The present study aimed to compare argon plasma coagulation (APC) + adrenaline injection (AI) with hemoclips + AI for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized trial, 172 patients with major stigmata of peptic ulcer bleeding were randomly assigned to receive APC + AI (n = 89) or hemoclips + AI (n = 83). In the event of rebleeding, the initial modality was used again. Patients in whom treatment or retreatment was unsuccessful underwent emergency surgery. The primary end point of rebleeding rate and secondary end points of initial and definitive hemostasis need for surgery and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in all background variables. Definitive hemostasis was achieved in 85 of 89 (95.5%) of the APC + AI and 82 of 83 (98.8%) of the hemoclips + AI group (P = 0.206). The mean volume of adrenaline injected in the two groups was equal (20.7 mL; P = 0.996). There was no significant difference in terms of initial hemostasis (96.6% versus 98.8%; P = 0.337), rate of rebleeding (11.2% versus 4.8%; P = 0.124), need for surgery (4.5% versus 1.2%; P = 0.266) and mortality (2.2% versus 1.2%; P = 0.526). When compared for the combined end point of mortality plus rebleeding and the need for surgery, there was an advantage for the hemoclip group (6% versus 15.7%, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Hemoclips + AI has no superiority over APC + AI in treating patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. Hemoclips + AI may be superior when a combination of all negative outcomes is considered.

The use of endoclips in the treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common emergency managed by endoscopists and the endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment. Traditionally, endoscopic treatment included injections of epinephrine and sclerosing solutions or the use of thermocoagulation. In the last decade with the introduction of hemoclips and band ligators, we have witnessed a significant improvement in the clinical outcome of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoclipping is a safe and effective technique that contributes to hemostasis of bleeding lesions of the gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic band ligation could decrease recurrent bleeding in Mallory-Weiss syndrome as compared to haemostasis by hemoclips plus epinephrine

BACKGROUND

Mallory-Weiss syndrome (MWS) with active bleeding at endoscopy may require endoscopic haemostasis the modalities of which are not well-defined.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation vs. hemoclip plus epinephrine (adrenaline) in bleeding MWS.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2008, 218 consecutive patients with a MWS at endoscopy were hospitalized in our Gastrointestinal Bleeding Unit. In 56 patients (26%), an endoscopic haemostasis was required because of active bleeding. Band ligation was performed in 29 patients (Banding group), while hemoclip application plus epinephrine injection was performed in 27 patients (H&E group). Treatment efficacy and early recurrent bleeding were retrospectively compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Primary endoscopic haemostasis was achieved in all patients. Recurrent bleeding occurred in 0% in Banding group vs. 18% in H&E group (P = 0.02). The use of hemoclips plus epinephrine (OR = 3; 95% CI = 1.15-15.8) and active bleeding at endoscopy (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.04-5.2) were independent predictive factors of early recurrent bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemostasis by hemoclips plus epinephrine was an independent predictive factor of rebleeding. This result suggests that band ligation could be the first choice endoscopic treatment for bleeding MWS, but requires further prospective assessment.

Clinical results of endoscopic hemostasis using a short transparent hood and short hemoclips for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM

Endoscopic hemostasis using hemoclips is useful, but there are technical difficulties because the angle of the approach is tangential. A transparent hood facilitates the observation and treatment of these lesions, and a shorter hood provides a wider visible field. Endoscopic hemoclipping of hard lesions with hemoclips of the conventional size does not reliably result in sustained hemostasis because the clips slip. Short clips, however, can be easily clamped on protruded visible vessels without slip. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis with a short transparent hood and short clips.

METHODS

Subjects were 198 patients with 214 lesions of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding at Keio University Hospital. We used a video endoscope with a short transparent hood attached to its distal tip and carried out hemostasis using short hemoclips.

RESULTS

The short transparent hood provided a good visual field. If the lesions were in the tangential, the short hood made it possible to observe them in the frontal view and made clip hemostasis much easier. The short clip could be securely clamped against protruded visible vessels. Of 214 lesion, 211 (98.6%) had temporal hemostasis. Rebleeding occurred in 13 of 211 lesions (6.2%), and 205 of 214 lesions (95.8%) had permanent hemostasis. Nine cases were endoscopically difficult.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemostasis with a short transparent hood and short clips is useful for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Upper endoscopy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) can present a challenge. The utility of upper endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, EGD) and endoscopic therapy must be weighed against safety considerations.

AIM

To assess the utility and safety of EGD in patients with UGIB and AMI.

METHODS

Using decision analysis, patients with UGIB and AMI were assigned to one of two strategies: (1) EGD prior to cardiac catheterization (EGD strategy) and (2) cardiac catheterization without EGD (CATH strategy).

RESULTS

In patients with overt UGIB, the EGD strategy resulted in 97 deaths per 10,000 patients, compared with 600 deaths in the CATH strategy. The EGD strategy resulted in fewer non-fatal complications (1,271 vs. 6,000 per 10,000 patients). In patients with occult blood loss, the EGD strategy resulted in more deaths (59 vs. 16 per 10,000) and more non-fatal complications (888 vs. 160 per 10,000) than the CATH strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis supports EGD prior to cardiac catheterization in patients with AMI and overt UGIB. This strategy results in fewer deaths and complications compared with a strategy of proceeding directly to catheterization. Our analysis does not support routine EGD prior to cardiac catheterization in patients with fecal occult blood.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for obscure GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Of patients who are seen with GI hemorrhage, approximately 5% will have a small-bowel source. Management of these patients entails considerable expense. We performed a decision analysis to explore the optimal management strategy for obscure GI hemorrhage.

METHODS

We used a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare no therapy (reference arm) to 5 competing modalities for a 50-year-old patient with obscure overt bleeding: (1) push enteroscopy, (2) intraoperative enteroscopy, (3) angiography, (4) initial anterograde double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) followed by retrograde DBE if the patient had ongoing bleeding, and (5) small-bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) followed by DBE guided by the CE findings. The model included prevalence rates for small-bowel lesions, sensitivity for each intervention, and the probability of spontaneous bleeding cessation. We examined total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) over a 1-year time period.

RESULTS

An initial DBE was the most cost-effective approach. The no-therapy arm cost $532 and was associated with 0.870 QALYs compared with $2407 and 0.956 QALYs for the DBE approach, which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,833 per QALY gained. Compared to the DBE approach, an initial CE was more costly and less effective. The initial DBE arm resulted in an 86% bleeding cessation rate compared to 76% for the CE arm and 59% for the no-therapy arm. The model results were robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

The short time horizon of the model, because of the lack of long-term data about the natural history of rebleeding from small-intestinal lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

An initial DBE is a cost-effective approach for patients with obscure bleeding. However, capsule-directed DBE may be associated with better long-term outcomes because of the potential for fewer complications and decreased utilization of endoscopic resources.

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.

Endoscopic clipping for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic clipping is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of various bleeding gastrointestinal lesions. Randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have shown comparable efficacy between clipping and conventional contact thermal therapy for definitive hemostasis of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Clipping also seems to be efficacious for selected lower gastrointestinal bleeding lesions, such as diverticular bleeding and postpolypectomy bleeding. Proficiency in clip application and endoscopic identification of lesions that are amenable to clipping are key determinants of a successful outcome.

Endoscopic clipping for acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding (NVUGIB) is common, with a high rate of recurrent bleeding and substantial mortality rate. Endoscopic clipping has the theoretical advantage of minimizing tissue injury and is increasingly used.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate any potential benefits of clipping over other endoscopic techniques for NVUGIB.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared clipping with other endoscopic hemostatic methods to treat NVUGIB were included. Summary effect size was estimated by odds ratio (OR) with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs met inclusion criteria. For peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), the hemoclip (n = 351 patients) was compared with the heat probe alone, thermal therapy plus injection, and injection alone in 2, 2, and 5 studies, respectively (n = 348 patients). The rate of the initial hemostasis was nonsignificantly increased in the control group compared with the hemoclip group (92% vs 96%, OR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.19-1.75]). The rebleeding rate was nonsignificantly decreased with hemoclips compared with controls (8.5% vs 15.5%, OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.30-1.05]). Emergency surgery and the mortality rate were not significantly different between the hemoclip and controls. Subgroup analysis conducted in studies that compared hemoclips with injection alone show similar results. Two studies and one study reported outcomes of interest for Dieulafoy's lesions and Mallory-Weiss syndrome, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs that compared clipping alone with other endoscopic hemostatic techniques for NVUGIB were limited. Current evidence suggests that the hemoclip is not superior to other endoscopic modalities in terms of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, emergency surgery, and the mortality rate for treatment of PUB.