Effect of erythromycin before endoscopy in patients presenting with variceal bleeding: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adult patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations.

METHODS

We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children: Current Management, Controversies, and Advances

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in children has many causes, with its prevalence varying by age. Often presenting as hematemesis or melena, the initial treatment is stabilization of the patient, including protection of the airway, fluid resuscitation, and a transfusion hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/L. Endoscopy should be performed with the goal of using combinations of therapies to treat a bleeding lesion, generally involving epinephrine injection along with either cautery, hemoclips, or hemospray. This review discusses the diagnosis and treatment of variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in children with a focus on current advances in the treatment of severe UGIB.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Erythromycin Improves the Quality of Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) usually requires esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for diagnostic and-potentially-therapeutic purposes. However, blood within the gastric lumen may hinder the procedure. Administration of prokinetics like erythromycin has shown efficacy. This network meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of this intervention prior to EGD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed/Medline, and other databases through March 8, 2022 to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prokinetic use in EGD for UGIB. We used the DerSimonian-Laird approach to pool data and compare outcomes including need for repeat endoscopy and blood transfusion. Pooled prevalence of proportional outcomes, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were calculated.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with four distinct intervention groups (erythromycin, placebo to erythromycin, nasogastric (NG) lavage and NG lavage + erythromycin) published between 2002 and 2020 with a total of 721 patients (mean age 60.0 ± 3.1 years; 73.2% male). The need for second look endoscopy was significantly lower with erythromycin than placebo (relative risk: 0.42, CI 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01). Using the frequentist approach, the combination of NG lavage and erythromycin (92.2) was rated highest, followed by erythromycin alone (73.1) for higher rates of empty stomach. Erythromycin was rated highest for lower need for packed red blood cell transfusion (72.8) as well as mean endoscopy duration (66.0).

CONCLUSION

Erythromycin improved visualization at EGD, reduced requirements for blood transfusion and repeat EGD, and shortened hospital stay. The combination of erythromycin and NG lavage showed reduced mortality.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices: Expert Review

Management of bleeding gastric varices (GV) presents a unique challenge for patients with portal hypertension. Despite over thirty years of diagnostic and treatment advances standardized practices for bleeding GV are lacking and unsupported by adequate evidence. There are no definitive natural history studies to help with risk assessment or prospective clinical trials to guide clinical decision making. Available literature on the natural history and management of gastric varices consists of case series, restricted cohort studies, and a few small randomized trials, all of which have significant selection biases. This review summarizes the available data and recommendations based on expert opinion on how best to diagnose and manage bleeding from gastric varices. Table 1 summarizes our recommendations.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Treatment of Acute Variceal Bleeding in 2021-When to Use Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts?

Variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis is associated with high mortality if not adequately managed. Treatment of acute variceal bleeding with adequate resuscitation maneuvers, restrictive transfusion policy, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic therapy is highly effective at controlling bleeding and preventing death. There is a subgroup of high-risk cirrhotic patients in whom this strategy fails, however, and who have a high-mortality rate. Placing a preemptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in these high-risk patients, as soon as possible after admission, to achieve early control of bleeding has proved not only to control bleeding but also to improve survival.

Removal of giant blood clots in patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding using novel methods: two case reports

Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is a severe complication of cirrhotic portal hypertension. Endoscopic treatment is recommended as the first-line therapy for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, and its therapeutic effect is closely related to the visualization of endoscopy. We reported 2 cases of gastric variceal bleeding in which clear endoscopic visualization was obtained with two simple approaches assisted by suction tube and stone retrieval basket, respectively. Endoscopic treatments were successfully conducted after the removal of giant blood clots. Serious complications were not found.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Recommendations on the Diagnosis and Initial Management of Acute Variceal Bleeding and Hepatorenal Syndrome in Patients with Cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a serious and life-threatening condition which imposes a significant socioeconomic burden on affected individuals and healthcare systems. Cirrhosis can result in portal hypertension, which may lead to major complications, including acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome. Without prompt treatment, these complications may be life-threatening. Over the past 2 decades, new treatment modalities and treatment strategies have been introduced, which have improved patients' prognosis, but the initial management of these severe complications continues to present a challenge. The present recommendations aim to increase clinicians' knowledge on the importance of early diagnosis and treatment, and to provide evidence-based management strategies to potentially, further improve patient outcomes. Special attention was given to the role of terlipressin. A comprehensive non-systematic literature search was undertaken to evaluate the evidence for the diagnosis and initial management of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis. Recommendations on the diagnosis and initial management of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis have been developed based on the best available evidence and the expert opinion of the consensus panel following a comprehensive review of the available clinical data. Prompt identification and timely treatment of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome are essential to reduce the burden.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension in the Pediatric Population

Cirrhosis is a complex process in which the architecture of the liver is replaced by structurally abnormal nodules due to cirrhosis. Cirrhosis frequently leads to the development of portal hypertension. In children, portal hypertension may be caused by a wide range of etiologies, including extrahepatic portal vein obstruction, biliary atresia, alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency, and autoimmune hepatitis. Gastroesophageal varices and ascites are two of the complications of portal hypertension likely to cause morbidity and mortality. This review also discusses extrahepatic manifestations of portal hypertension and treatment options.

What Is the Best Endoscopic Strategy in Acute Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

OPINION STATEMENT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (UNVGIB) remains an important clinical challenge for endoscopists, requiring skill and expertise for correct management. In this paper, we suggest the best strategy for an effective treatment of this complex category of patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early endoscopic examination, the increasingly widespread use of endoscopic hemostasis methods, and the most powerful antisecretory agents that induce clot stabilization have radically modified the clinical scenario for treating this pathology. While hospitalization for digestive hemorrhage is decreasing, the incidence of bleeding seems to be increasing, especially in the elderly for whom a greater use of gastrolesive drugs and the presence of comorbidities are more common. A multidisciplinary approach for initial patient evaluation and hemodynamic resuscitation prior to endoscopic treatment is crucial for correct management, prevention of rebleeding, and reduction of morbidity and mortality rates and hospital stays. Appropriate operator technical expertise, together with the availability of a wide range of endoscopes and devices, is mandatory. Newer endoscopic techniques may improve patient outcomes for difficult-to-treat lesions. Today, endoscopic hemostasis can be achieved in over 95% of patients.

Evaluation and management of Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding continues to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The most common causes include peptic ulcer disease, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, erosive gastritis, duodenitis, esophagitis, malignancy, angiodysplasias and Dieulafoy's lesion. Initial assessment and early aggressive resuscitation significantly improves outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment. We present a comprehensive review of literature for the evaluation and management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Hospital-level balloon tamponade use is associated with increased mortality for all patients presenting with acute variceal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Balloon tamponade (BT) can bridge patients to salvage therapy for uncontrollable acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH). However, data are limited regarding the reasons for, rate of and outcomes associated with Balloon tamponade use.

METHODS

First, we performed an single-centre cohort study of all patients (N = 139) with oesophageal acute variceal haemorrhage from 01/2009 to 10/2015. Associations between Balloon tamponade use and adherence to four quality metrics (endoscopy within 12 hours, band-ligation, pre-endoscopy antibiotics and octreotide) were evaluated. Second, we analysed the National Inpatient Sample (2005-2011) to determine the association between in-hospital mortality for patients and their hospital's Balloon tamponade-utilization to acute variceal haemorrhage volume ratio.

RESULTS

In the national cohort, 5.5% of 140 521 acute variceal haemorrhage admissions required Balloon tamponade utilization. Adjusting for patient- and hospital-level confounders, the rate of Balloon tamponade use per acute variceal haemorrhage managed at any given hospital was associated with increased mortality for all-comers with acute variceal haemorrhage. Compared to the lowest tertile, acute variceal haemorrhage admissions in the highest Balloon tamponade utilizers were associated with increased mortality of (OR1.17 95%CI (1.01-1.37). In the single-centre cohort, 14 (10.1%) patients required Balloon tamponade. Balloon tamponade utilization was significantly associated with alcohol abuse (50.4% vs 21.4%, P = .04), hepatocellular carcinoma (35.7% vs 8.8%, P = .01), higher median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (26.3vs15.5, P = .002) and active bleeding during endoscopy (64.3% vs 27.5%, P = .01). Failure to provide all quality metrics was associated with a higher model for end-stage liver disease-adjusted risk of Balloon tamponade use: OR 16.7 95% CI(4.17-100.0, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Balloon tamponade use is associated with severity of bleeding but may also implicate deficits in processes of care. Even for patients who did not need Balloon tamponade, presentation to hospitals with high Balloon tamponade utilization increases their odds of dying from acute variceal haemorrhage.

Pre-endoscopic erythromycin administration in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

In patients suffering from upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), adequate visualization is essential during endoscopy. Prior to endoscopy, erythromycin administration has been shown to enhance visualization in these patients; however, guidelines have not fully adopted this practice. Thus, we performed a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis on the issue of erythromycin administration in this patient population.

Methods

After searching multiple databases (November 2015), randomized controlled trials on adult subjects comparing administration of erythromycin before endoscopy in UGIB patients to no erythromycin or placebo were included. Pooled estimates of adequacy of gastric mucosa visualized, need for second endoscopy, duration of procedure, length of hospital stay, units of blood transfused, and need for emergent surgery using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) were calculated. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.

Results

Eight studies (n=598) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Erythromycin administration showed statistically significant improvement in adequate gastric mucosa visualization (OR 4.14; 95% CI: 2.01-8.53, P<0.01) while reduced the need for a second-look endoscopy (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.34-0.77, P<0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD -1.75; 95% CI: -2.43 to -1.06, P<0.01). Duration of procedure (P=0.2), units of blood transfused (P=0.08), and need for emergent surgery (P=0.88) showed no significant differences.

Conclusion

Pre-endoscopic erythromycin administration in UGIB patients significantly improves gastric mucosa visualization while reducing length of hospital stay and the need for second-look endoscopy.

Factors that affect visibility during endoscopic hemostasis for upper GI bleeding: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Adequate visibility is an important factor for achieving successful endoscopic hemostasis for the treatment of upper GI bleeding (UGIB). The independent factors that affect visibility during endoscopic procedures have yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors that affect endoscopic visibility and to create a model that can predict in which patients unacceptable visibility is suspected before emergent endoscopic procedures for UGIB.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

University-affiliated tertiary care hospital in South Korea.

PATIENTS

A total of 121 patients admitted because of UGIB.

INTERVENTION

Analysis of the visibility score of the emergency endoscopies for UGIB.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Factors affecting the visibility score of endoscopy and a classification and regression tree (CART) model for predicting of visibility.

RESULTS

The EGD time and the appearance of the nasogastric (NG) tube aspirate were independent factors that were significantly associated with visibility (EGD time, P<.001; red blood appearance in NG tube aspirate, P<.001; coffee grounds appearance of NG tube aspirate, P=.006). Based on these results, a CART model was developed by using 70 patients who had been allocated to the training set. The CART generated algorithms that proposed the use of the appearance of the NG tube aspirate and the EGD time (8.5 hours) to predict visibility. The sensitivity and specificity for predicting poor visibility were 71.4% and 86.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of the CART model enables the prediction of which patients will have poor visibility during emergent endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal bleeding after continuous-flow left ventricular device implantation: review of pathophysiology and management

Gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most common complications in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Though the exact pathophysiology is still unclear, continuous-flow physiology, acquired Von Willebrand disease, and formation of arteriovenous malformations in the gastrointestinal tract are implicated. An individualized plan of endoscopic therapy and anticoagulation management is required when caring for these patients.

Role of Medical Therapy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Mortality from UGIB has remained 5-10% over the past decade. This article presents current evidence-based recommendations for the medical management of UGIB. Preendoscopic management includes initial resuscitation, risk stratification, appropriate use of blood products, and consideration of nasogastric tube insertion, erythromycin, and proton pump inhibitor therapy. The use of postendoscopic intravenous proton pump inhibitors is strongly recommended for certain patient populations. Postendoscopic management also includes the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori, appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors and iron replacement therapy.

Injection and Cautery Methods for Nonvariceal Bleeding Control

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most common challenges faced by gastroenterologists and endoscopists in daily clinical practice. Endoscopic management of nonvariceal bleeding has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, with significant reduction of recurrent bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. Early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is recommended in all patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding within 24 hours of presentation, although appropriate resuscitation, stabilization of hemodynamic parameters, and optimization of comorbidity before endoscopy are essential.

Predictive Factors for Endoscopic Visibility and Strategies for Pre-endoscopic Prokinetics Use in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although current guideline recommends selective use of pre-endoscopic prokinetics to increase diagnostic yield in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients, no data to guide the use of these drugs are available.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate predictive factors for endoscopic visibility and develop simple and useful strategies for pre-endoscopic prokinetics use in UGIB patients.

METHODS

A total of 220 consecutive patients who underwent upper endoscopy for suspicious UGIB were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to either a training or a validation set at a 2:1 ratio. Significant parameters on univariate analysis were subsequently tested by a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.

RESULTS

Time to endoscopy and nasogastric aspirate findings were independently related to endoscopic visibility. The CART analysis generated algorithms proposed sequential use of time to endoscopy (≤5.2 vs. >5.2 h) and nasogastric aspirate findings (red blood or coffee rounds vs. clear aspirate) for predicting endoscopic visibility. Prediction of unacceptable visibility in the validation set produced sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 75.8, 67.5, 65.8, and 77.1 %, respectively. Accurate prediction for visibility was identified in 52 of 73 patients (71.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Time to endoscopy and nasogastric aspirate findings were independently related to endoscopic visibility in patients with UGIB. A decision-tree model incorporating these two variables may be useful for selecting UGIB patients who benefit from pre-endoscopic prokinetics use.

Non-anti-infective effects of antimicrobials and their clinical applications: a review

Antimicrobial agents are undoubtedly one of the key advances in the history of modern medicine and infectious diseases, improving the clinical outcomes of infection owing to their inhibitory effects on microbial growth. However, many antimicrobial agents also have biological activities stemming from their interactions with host receptors and effects on host inflammatory responses and other human or bacterial cellular biological pathways. These result in clinical uses of antimicrobial drugs that are distinct from their direct bacteriostatic or bactericidal properties. We reviewed the published literature regarding non-anti-infective therapeutic properties and proposed clinical applications of selected antimicrobials, specifically, macrolides, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and ketoconazole. The clinical applications reviewed were varied, and we focused on uses that were clinically relevant (in terms of importance and burden of disease) and where published evidence exists. Such uses include chronic inflammatory pulmonary and skin disorders, chronic periodontitis, gastrointestinal dysmotility, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer. Most of these potential therapeutic uses are not Food and Drug Administration approved. Clinicians need to weigh the use of antimicrobial agents for their non-anti-infective benefits, considering potential adverse effects and long-term effect on microbial resistance.

Epidemiology and diagnosis of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common gastroenterological emergency. A vast majority of these bleeds have nonvariceal causes, in particular gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, low-dose aspirin use, and Helicobacter pylori infection are the main risk factors for UGIB. Current epidemiologic data suggest that patients most affected are older with medical comorbidit. Widespread use of potentially gastroerosive medications underscores the importance of adopting gastroprotective pharamacologic strategies. Endoscopy is the mainstay for diagnosis and treatment of acute UGIB. It should be performed within 24 hours of presentation by skilled operators in adequately equipped settings, using a multidisciplinary team approach.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

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

Cirrhosis and its complications: Evidence based treatment

Cirrhosis results from progressive fibrosis and is the final outcome of all chronic liver disease. It is among the ten leading causes of death in United States. Cirrhosis can result in portal hypertension and/or hepatic dysfunction. Both of these either alone or in combination can lead to many complications, including ascites, varices, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and coagulation disorders. Cirrhosis and its complications not only impair quality of life but also decrease survival. Managing patients with cirrhosis can be a challenge and requires an organized and systematic approach. Increasing physicians’ knowledge about prevention and treatment of these potential complications is important to improve patient outcomes. A literature search of the published data was performed to provide a comprehensive review regarding the management of cirrhosis and its complications.

Management of acute variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Advances in the management of AVB have resulted in decreased mortality. To minimize mortality, a multidisciplinary approach addressing airway safety, prompt judicious volume resuscitation, vasoactive and antimicrobial pharmacotherapy, and early endoscopy to obliterate varices is necessary. Placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used as rescue therapy for patients failing initial attempts at hemostasis. Patients who have a high likelihood of failing initial attempts at hemostasis may benefit from a more aggressive approach using TIPS earlier in their management.

Role of enhanced multi-detector-row computed tomography before urgent endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Multi-detector-row computed tomography (MDCT) has been reported to be a potentially useful modality for detection of the bleeding origin in patients with acute upper massive gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of MDCT as a routine method for detecting the origin of acute upper GI bleeding prior to urgent endoscopy.

METHODS

Five hundred seventy-seven patients with acute upper GI bleeding (514 nonvariceal patients, 63 variceal patients) who underwent urgent upper GI endoscopy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups: enhanced MDCT, unenhanced MDCT, and no MDCT before endoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of MDCT for detection of the bleeding origin was evaluated, and the average procedure times needed to endoscopically identify the bleeding origin were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Diagnostic accuracy among endoscopists was 55.3% and 14.7% for the enhanced MDCT and unenhanced MDCT groups, respectively. Among nonvariceal patients, accuracy was 50.2% in the enhanced MDCT group, which was significantly better than that in the unenhanced MDCT group (16.5%). In variceal patients, accuracy was significantly better in the enhanced MDCT group (96.4%) than in the unenhanced MDCT group (0.0%). These accuracies were similar to those achieved by expert radiologists. The average procedure time to endoscopic detection of the bleeding origin in the enhanced MDCT group was significantly faster than that in the unenhanced MDCT and no-MDCT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced MDCT preceding urgent endoscopy may be an effective modality for the detection of bleeding origin in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.

Role of prophylactic antibiotics in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding

Bacterial infections are common in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding, occurring in 20% within 48 h. Outcomes including early rebleeding and failure to control bleeding are strongly associated with bacterial infection. However, mortality from variceal bleeding is largely determined by the severity of liver disease. Besides a higher Child-Pugh score, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are particularly susceptible to infections. Despite several hypotheses that include increased use of instruments, greater risk of aspiration pneumonia and higher bacterial translocation, it remains debatable whether variceal bleeding results in infection or vice versa but studies suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopy and up to 8 h is useful in reducing bacteremia and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Aerobic gram negative bacilli of enteric origin are most commonly isolated from cultures, but more recently, gram positives and quinolone-resistant organisms are increasingly seen, even though their clinical significance is unclear. Fluoroquinolones (including ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin) used for short term (7 d) have the most robust evidence and are recommended in most expert guidelines. Short term intravenous cephalosporin (especially ceftriaxone), given in a hospital setting with prevalent quinolone-resistant organisms, has been shown in studies to be beneficial, particularly in high risk patients with advanced cirrhosis.

Current Management Strategies for Acute Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is one of the clinical events that define decompensated cirrhosis and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although recent treatment strategies have led to improved outcomes, variceal hemorrhage still carries a 6-week mortality rate of 15-20%. Current standards in its treatment include antibiotic prophylaxis, infusion of a vasoactive drug and endoscopic variceal ligation. The placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is considered for patients that have treatment failure or recurrent bleeding. Recurrent hemorrhage is prevented with the combination of a non-selective beta-blocker and endoscopic variceal ligation. These recommendations however assume that all patients with cirrhosis are equal. Based on a review of recent evidence, a strategy in which patients are stratified by Child class, the main predictor of outcomes, is proposed.

Premedication with erythromycin improves endoscopic visualization of the gastric mucosa in patients with subtotal gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Food residue in the remnant stomach after subtotal gastrectomy (STG) interferes with endoscopic observation. We investigated whether intravenous erythromycin improves gastric mucosa visualization in patients with STG.

METHODS

This study was conducted from April 2012 to October 2012 as a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients who received STG with complete resection (stage T1-2N0M0) were included. Exclusion criteria were diabetes mellitus, neurologic disease, myopathy, recent viral enteritis history, concomitant therapy influencing gastrointestinal motility and severe comorbidity. Patients were instructed to consume a soft diet for dinner between 1800 and 2000 h, and endoscopies were performed between 0900 and 1200 h. Patients were assigned randomly to receive either erythromycin (125 mg in normal saline 50 cc) or placebo saline. The endoscopy was performed 15 min after infusion. Grade of residual food was rated as follows: G0, no residual food; G1, a small amount of residual food; G2, a moderate amount of residual food; G3, a moderate amount of residual food that hinders observation of the entire surface, even with body rolling; G4, a great amount of residual food such that endoscopic observation is impossible.

RESULTS

When good visibility was defined as G0+G1, visibility was significantly better in the erythromycin group (61 + 19 %) than in the placebo group (38 + 12 %, p < 0.001). However, this effect was not seen in patients within 6 months after gastrectomy. The risk factor for food stasis in the placebo group (n = 58) was food stasis at last endoscopy. The only factor predicting erythromycin response in the erythromycin group (n = 56) was elapsed time since surgery. Adverse effects included nausea [11 (19.7 %)] and vomiting [1 (1.8 %)] in the erythromycin group and vomiting [3 (5.2 %)] in the placebo group. However, they were transient and tolerable.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with erythromycin improves mucosal visualization during endoscopy in patients with STG. (

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01659619).

Administration of erythromycin before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIM

Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has been hypothesized to aid in visualization and reduce the need for second-look endoscopy; however, the results have been controversial. To evaluate further, we performed a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in acute UGIB.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched (March 2013). Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. A meta-analysis for the effect of erythromycin or no erythromycin before endoscopy in UGIB were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of primary (visualization of gastric mucosa and need for second endoscopy) and secondary (units of blood transfused, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure) outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration).

RESULTS

Six studies (N = 558) met the inclusion criteria. Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in UGIB demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in visualization of the gastric mucosa [odds ratio (OR) 3.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.81 to 6.50, P < 0.01] compared with no erythromycin. In addition, erythromycin infusion before endoscopy resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the need for a second endoscopy (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.83, P = 0.01), units of blood transfused (WMD - 0.41; 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.01, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospital stay (WMD - 1.51; 95% CI: -2.45 to -0.56, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in patients with UGIB significantly improves visualization of gastric mucosa while decreasing the need for a second endoscopy, units of blood transfused, and duration of hospital stay.

Management by the intensivist of gastrointestinal bleeding in adults and children

Intensivists are regularly confronted with the question of gastrointestinal bleeding. To date, the latest international recommendations regarding prevention and treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding lack a specific approach to the critically ill patients. We present recommendations for management by the intensivist of gastrointestinal bleeding in adults and children, developed with the GRADE system by an experts group of the French-Language Society of Intensive Care (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF), with the participation of the French Language Group of Paediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies (GFRUP), the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE), and the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED). The recommendations cover five fields of application: management of gastrointestinal bleeding before endoscopic diagnosis, treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding unrelated to portal hypertension, treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension, management of presumed lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in intensive care.

Complications of cirrhosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic liver disease (CLD) causes significant morbidity and mortality, mainly due to complications [hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), and esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH)]. Studies of the complications, management and outcomes in patients with CLD over the past 18 months are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous liver biopsy can be safely performed in patients with advanced liver disease with minimal complications. Predictors of response to lactulose, probiotics and L-ornithine-L-aspartate therapy in minimal hepatic encephalopathy have been reported. Rifaximin was found to lead to better maintenance of remission and decreased re-admission rates in patients with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve driving performance in those with minimal hepatic encephalopathy. In a controversial study, patients with refractory ascites taking propranolol were found to have poorer outcomes, perhaps related to beta-blockade associated paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction. Terlipressin and albumin therapy currently appears to be the best medical therapy available in patients with type 1 HRS, although pentoxifylline may be effective to treat HRS in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. In patients with gastric varices, primary prophylaxis with cyanoacrylate may decrease the probability of gastric variceal hemorrhage compared to nonselective beta-blockers. In patients with esophageal varices without bleeding, prophylaxis with variceal ligation or beta-blockers was similar in terms of bleeding, mortality, and adverse events. Erythromycin given 30 min prior to endoscopic evaluation in suspected EVH was associated with an overall benefit in visibility, duration of the procedure and length of hospital stay.

SUMMARY

Refinement in clinical management strategies for patients with cirrhosis and its complications appears to continue to contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Management of patients with ulcer bleeding

This guideline presents recommendations for the step-wise management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Hemodynamic status is first assessed, and resuscitation initiated as needed. Patients are risk-stratified based on features such as hemodynamic status, comorbidities, age, and laboratory tests. Pre-endoscopic erythromycin is considered to increase diagnostic yield at first endoscopy. Pre-endoscopic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may be considered to decrease the need for endoscopic therapy but does not improve clinical outcomes. Upper endoscopy is generally performed within 24h. The endoscopic features of ulcers direct further management. Patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels receive endoscopic therapy (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, sclerosant, clips) and those with an adherent clot may receive endoscopic therapy; these patients then receive intravenous PPI with a bolus followed by continuous infusion. Patients with flat spots or clean-based ulcers do not require endoscopic therapy or intensive PPI therapy. Recurrent bleeding after endoscopic therapy is treated with a second endoscopic treatment; if bleeding persists or recurs, treatment with surgery or interventional radiology is undertaken. Prevention of recurrent bleeding is based on the etiology of the bleeding ulcer. H. pylori is eradicated and after cure is documented anti-ulcer therapy is generally not given. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are stopped; if they must be resumed low-dose COX-2-selective NSAID plus PPI is used. Patients with established cardiovascular disease who require aspirin should start PPI and generally re-institute aspirin soon after bleeding ceases (within 7 days and ideally 1-3 days). Patients with idiopathic ulcers receive long-term anti-ulcer therapy.

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the improvements in the management of this condition in western countries, mortality rates have remained at 5-10% over the past decade. This article presents the main recommendations for the management of UGIB. Pre-endoscopic management (including use of scoring scales, nasogastric tube placement and blood pressure stabilization) is crucial for triage and optimal resuscitation of patients, and should include a multidisciplinary approach at an early stage. Unless the patient has specific comorbidities, transfusion should only be considered if their hemoglobin level is ≤70 g/l. Endoscopic therapy, the cornerstone of therapeutic management of high-risk lesions, should not be delayed for more than 24 h following admission. Several endoscopic techniques, mostly using clips or thermal methods, are available and new approaches are emerging. When endoscopy fails, surgery or arterial embolization should be considered. Although the efficacy of prokinetics and high-dose intravenous PPI prior to endoscopy is controversial, the use of an intravenous PPI following endoscopy is strongly recommended. Antiplatelet therapy should be suspended and resumed in 3-5 days. Finally, all patients should be tested for Helicobacter pylori by serology in the acute setting.

Pharmacologic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are many clinical outcome measures for evaluation of the effectiveness of a pharmacologic agent in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). As a preemptive treatment, it should reduce the need for emergency endoscopy and endoscopic intervention, facilitate the efficient identification of the bleeding source and, hence, shorten procedure time and reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. As an effective adjunctive therapy after endoscopic hemostasis, it should reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding and the need to repeat endoscopic hemostasis. This article provides an overview of different pharmacologic agents that have been used in the management of UGIB.

Meta-analysis: erythromycin before endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the effect of erythromycin on patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) had been reported, but the results were inconclusive.

AIMS

To compare erythromycin with control in patients with acute UGIB by performing a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, were searched to find relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently identified relevant trials evaluating the effect of erythromycin on patients with acute UGIB. Outcome measures were the incidence of empty stomach, need for second endoscopy, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, endoscopic procedure time and mortality.

RESULTS

Four RCTs including 335 patients were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated the incidence of empty stomach was significantly increased in patients receiving erythromycin (active group 69%, control group 37%, P<0.00001). The need for second endoscopy, amount of blood transfusion and the length of hospital stay were also significantly reduced (all P<0.05). A trend for shorter endoscopic procedure time and decreased mortality rate was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic erythromycin is useful for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding to decrease the amount of blood in the stomach and reduce the need for second endoscopy, amount of blood transfusion. It may shorten the length of hospital stay, but its effects on mortality need further larger trials to be confirmed.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric varices.