Endoscopic injection of adrenalin in bleeding peptic ulcers

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

Efficacy of endoscopic isotonic saline-epinephrine injection for the management of active Mallory-Weiss tears

Therapeutic endoscopy with isotonic saline-epinephrine (ISE) injection is a convenient and widely used procedure for hemostasis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We retrospectively evaluated 36 patients (from January 1996 to April 1999) who had been diagnosed with recent or active bleeding due to Mallory-Weiss tears in emergency endoscopic examination. The endoscopic hemostatic method with ISE injection was performed in 15 of 36 patients. The other 21 patients received conservative treatment with hemodynamic support. Patient's clinical data, laboratory data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic findings, and length of hospital stays were evaluated. Initial hemoglobin was significantly lower in the ISE group than the conservative treatment group (9.74 +/- 2.86 g/dL vs. 12.57 +/- 2.80 g/dL, respectively; p < 0.01). Mean transfusion requirements were significantly higher in the ISE group than the conservative treatment group (7.26 +/- 8.78 units vs. 2.85 +/- 6.21 units, respectively; p < 0.1). Patients in the ISE group were supposed to be having a more severe bleeding episode. Most patients achieved initial hemostasis in the ISE group and the conservative treatment group (93% and 95%, respectively). The rebleeding rate was also similar in both groups (1 in 15 in the ISE group and I in 21 in the conservative treatment group). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay and rebleeding between these two groups (3.47 +/- 1.92 days vs. 2.47 +/- 1.47 days, respectively: p = 0.89). The endoscopic ISE injection is an inexpensive, simple, convenient therapeutic method and it can achieve initial hemostasis for active Mallory-Weiss tears.

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

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

Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection and a combination of the two for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic hemoclip method is a safe and effective hemostatic method for managing bleeding peptic ulcers. We compared the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with that of hypertonic saline-epinephrine (HSE) injection and a combined method in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

From July 1994 to July 1997, we conducted a randomized clinical trial of endoscopic hemostasis involving 124 patients with actively bleeding or visible vessels at endoscopic inspection.

RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned to hemoclip (41 patients), HSE (41 patients), and combined treatment groups (42 patients). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 97.6%, 95.1%, and 97.6% of cases, respectively. Recurrent bleeding developed in 2.4%, 14.6%, and 9.5% of cases. Emergency operations were performed in 4.9%, 14.6%, and 2.3% of cases. The hemostasis rate was 71.4%, 50%, and 66.7% for spurting hemorrhage in each group. Permanent hemostasis was achieved in 95.1%, 85.4%, and 95.2% of cases. Three patients had complications, all in the HSE group.

CONCLUSIONS

The hemoclip method is an effective hemostatic procedure and is safer than HSE injection. The combined method does not provide substantial advantage over use of the hemoclip method alone in the hemostatic management of bleeding peptic ulcers.

Endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer using absolute alcohol

The injection of sclerosants and adrenaline in a bleeding peptic ulcer is known to arrest bleeding in the majority of patients. However, there are very few studies from India on this subject. Injection therapy was carried out using absolute alcohol in 21 patients with bleeding gastric ulcer and 55 with bleeding duodenal ulcer. Injection therapy successfully controlled bleeding in all 76 patients. Bleeding recurred in two patients who were successfully managed with a second injection of absolute alcohol. Post-injection blood transfusion was required in 16 (76%) patients with gastric ulcer compared with only 12 (22%) of those with a duodenal ulcer. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). No complication of injection therapy was noted. It is concluded that injection therapy using absolute alcohol is a safe and effective therapy for managing patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

Management of haematemesis and melaena

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a common medical emergency with high morbidity and mortality. High risk patients are best managed in specialised units. Endoscopy is the procedure of choice for diagnosis and haemostatic therapy of peptic ulcers, reducing deaths and the probability of rebleeding, as well as the need for surgery; for acute variceal bleeding, pharmacotherapy followed by endoscopic ligation is recommended.

Epinephrine or epinephrine plus alcohol for injection of bleeding ulcers: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding following epinephrine injection of bleeding peptic ulcers occurs in 10% to 20% of all cases. The addition of a sclerosant has the theoretical advantage of inducing vessel thrombosis and permanent hemostasis.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare injections with epinephrine alone or epinephrine plus absolute alcohol in patients with actively bleeding ulcers at endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy was performed 24 hours later; treatment was repeated in the presence of endoscopic signs of rebleeding. Surgery was performed when arterial bleeding could not be controlled endoscopically, clinical rebleeding with hematemesis or shock occurred, or the transfusion total exceeded 8 units.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty patients were enrolled (epinephrine alone, 81; epinephrine and absolute alcohol, 79). They were matched in age, sex, location of ulcers, hemoglobin on admission, shock, and severity of bleeding. Initial hemostasis was comparable: 79 of 81 with epinephrine alone (97.5%) versus 75 of 79 with epinephrine and absolute alcohol (94.9%). No difference was observed between the two with respect to either rebleeding (9 vs 6), need for emergency operation (12 vs 9), transfusion requirement (median, three units vs two units), hospital stay (median, 5 days vs 4 days), mortality (4 vs 7) and ulcer healing at 4 weeks (50 vs 46).

CONCLUSIONS

The additional injection of absolute alcohol after endoscopic epinephrine injection confers no advantage.

Factors predicting failure of endoscopic injection therapy in bleeding duodenal ulcer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the factors that may cause failure of endoscopic injection in patients bleeding from a duodenal ulcer.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients admitted for a bleeding duodenal ulcer with active arterial hemorrhage or a nonbleeding visible vessel were included.

RESULTS

Endoscopic injection was not feasible in 14 of 120 (11.6%) patients because of inaccessibility or massive hemorrhage. The remaining 106 patients underwent endoscopic therapy by injection of adrenaline and polidocanol. The efficacy (achievement of definitive hemostasis) of endoscopy therapy was 83% (88 of 106). Univariate analysis showed that failure of endoscopic injection was related to age, presence of shock, ulcer size greater than 2 cm, and hemoglobin level. Multivariate analysis showed that ulcer size greater than 2 cm (p = 0.005) and the presence of shock (p = 0.03) were factors predictive of endoscopic treatment failure. Failure to achieve hemostasis (p < 0.001) and poor physical status measured by American Society of Anesthesiology classification (p = 0.02) were significantly related to mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size and severity of hemorrhage are predictive of endoscopic injection failure in patients bleeding from high-risk duodenal ulcers. Survival is determined by clinical status and associated diseases.

Combination therapy using adrenaline and heater probe to reduce rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer haemorrhage: a prospective randomized trial

A prospective randomized trial was performed to assess the efficacy of the combined therapy of endoscopic injection of adrenaline and heater probe application in the management of patients with major peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Some 153 consecutive patients were randomized to receive either local injection of adrenaline (1:10,000) followed by heater probe thermocoagulation (74 patients) or no endoscopic treatment (79 patients). The two groups were well matched with regard to age, haemoglobin concentration on admission, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug usage and endoscopic findings. More patients in the treatment group were in shock on admission (21 versus 13). Initial haemostasis was achieved in all patients randomized to endoscopic therapy. Rebleeding occurred in fewer treated than control patients (five versus 16, P = 0.01). The treated group also had fewer deaths (zero versus two) and requirement for operation (two versus six). The results show that the combination of sclerotherapy with adrenaline and subsequent thermocoagulation reduces the rate of rebleeding in peptic ulcer haemorrhage.

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

Forty-nine consecutive patients with bleeding from peptic ulcers that would conventionally have required surgical intervention were randomized to receive endoscopic injection of adrenaline (1:10,000) or laser photocoagulation. Patients were included only if they had a visible vessel at endoscopic examination. Five patients proceeded directly to surgery and, of the remaining 44, 21 received laser photocoagulation and 23 injection therapy. Haemostasis was achieved initially in all patients. There was one rebleed in the group of patients who received laser treatment and four in those treated by injection. All five patients underwent further endoscopic haemostasis according to the initial randomization. Haemostasis was again achieved in all cases, but the patient who had undergone laser treatment suffered recurrent haemorrhage after a further 48 h and subsequently died. Overall, one of the 21 patients receiving laser treatment died compared with none of the 23 injected with adrenaline. Injection of adrenaline achieves similar results to laser photocoagulation for bleeding peptic ulcer.

Adding a sclerosant to endoscopic epinephrine injection in actively bleeding ulcers: a randomized trial

We compared the efficacy of epinephrine injection and epinephrine injection followed by sodium tetradecyl sulfate in controlling active ulcer bleeding. Out of 2814 patients who underwent endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding, 200 patients with actively bleeding ulcers seen at the time of endoscopy were randomized to receive epinephrine injection alone (99 patients) or epinephrine injection followed by 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate (101 patients). After the procedure the patients were transferred to the surgical gastroenterology ward and were treated by surgeons who were unaware of the mode of treatment. The patients underwent routine endoscopy 24 hours later, and epinephrine injection was repeated if active bleeding was seen again. Emergency surgery was performed for the following: (1) arterial spurting not controlled endoscopically, (2) failure of the blood pressure or pulse to stabilize after 4 units of blood, (3) total transfusion of more than 8 units of blood, or (4) rebleeding as defined by hematemesis with pulse greater than 100 beats/min or blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg after stabilization. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site of ulcer, and severity of bleeding. Initial hemostasis was obtained at the time of endoscopy in 94% of the epinephrine group and 97% of the epinephrine plus sodium tetradecyl sulfate group. No difference in outcome was seen in the two groups as measured by emergency surgery requirement, blood transfusion, hospital stay, and hospital mortality. Endoscopic epinephrine injection is effective in controlling active ulcer bleeding. The additional injection of sodium tetradecyl sulfate confers no additional advantage.

Endoscopic injection therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bledding: Effective and safe

Twenty-nine patients underwent endoscopic injection therapy (EIT) for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding lesions when intensive conservative medical therapy was considered ineffective. Permanent hemostasis was achieved in 23 cases (79.3%) after one session of injection therapy and 27 cases (93.1%) after two sessions. No major complications occurred following EIT and no mortality related to the bleeding nor to the injection therapy occurred. Two patients had to have surgery after the EIT failed to control the bleeding. This study confirms what has been previously reported that injection therapy is a highly effective and safe procedure which could be used in non-variceal UGI bleeding when medical therapy fails.

Endoscopic injection for the arrest of peptic ulcer hemorrhage: final results of a prospective, randomized comparative trial

A prospective, randomized comparative study was performed to compare the hemostatic effect of endoscopic injection with normal saline, 3% NaCl solution, 50% glucose/water solution, and pure alcohol during a period of 2 years. Only patients with peptic ulcers and active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were considered. Each group comprised 50 patients. The four groups were matched at random for age, sex, location of bleeders, stigmata of recent hemorrhage, shock, hemoglobin, and concomitant illness. No statistically significant difference was observed among patients injected with normal saline, 3% NaCl solution, 50% glucose/water solution, or pure alcohol in achieving initial hemostasis (82%, 90%, 86%, and 92%, respectively); rebleeding rates (7.3%, 24.4%, 14%, and 10.9%, respectively); ultimate hemostasis (78%, 68%, 78%, and 84%, respectively); number of emergency operations (5, 7, 4, and 3, respectively); and average number of days in the hospital (6.7, 6.1, 6.1, and 5.8, respectively). A tendency toward a lower blood transfusion requirement was observed in the pure alcohol group, but this tendency failed to achieve statistical significance. One patient had a perforated ulcer develop 5 days after injection of 3 ml 50% glucose/water. Otherwise, no major complication was observed. We suggest that endoscopic injection with any of the above solutions can be used as the first-line modality for the arrest of peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has been expanded from a purely diagnostic role to a therapeutic role in many patients. In addition to controlling active bleeding, it is an option in a patient who is clinically at a high risk of rebleeding, or in patients who have peptic ulcers with visible vessels or stigmata indicating high risk. Several methods have been studied, and currently the most useful include thermal cautery with the heater probe or bipolar electrocoagulation, and injection using epinephrine and/or sclerosants. Endoscopic hemostasis can effect permanent control of bleeding in many patients, but should be considered complementary to conventional surgical control in other patients, where temporary control to stabilize the patient is a desired end.

Endoscopic interventional management of bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers

Bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers continue to be a common and serious problem. Definition of the precise appearance and location of the ulcer by endoscopy gives important information about the source of bleeding and additional information about the risk of rebleeding and the indications for surgery. Several endoscopic hemostatic methods are available. The nonerosive contact probes (heater and BICAP) are preferred. Injection therapy with vasoconstrictors or sclerosing agents can also be recommended as a safe, efficacious, and economical means of treatment. Several hemostatic modalities should be available for use depending on the anatomic location and type of bleeding ulcers. The collaboration of skilled interventional endoscopists with their traditional surgical colleagues offers the patient with bleeding peptic ulcer disease the optimum probability of a successful outcome, with minimum treatment-associated morbidity.

Endoscopic local injection of ethanolamine oleate and thrombin as an effective treatment for bleeding duodenal ulcer: a controlled trial

The injection of a mixture of ethanolamine oleate and thrombin as an effective treatment for bleeding duodenal ulcer was evaluated in 38 patients entered in a randomised prospective controlled trial. After a one week observation period, 1/19 (5.3%) treated patients and 11/19 (57.9%) control patients had suffered further bleeding (p less than 0.005; CI = 22%-74%). Emergency surgery was required in 1/19 in the treated group compared with 8/19 in the untreated group (CI = 13%-61%; p less than 0.05). The mean (SD) transfusion requirement in the treated group was 1.9 (0.5) U blood compared with 5.3 (0.7) U in the control group. No significant differences related to mortality were detected. In conclusion, local injection therapy is an effective means of haemostasis in patients with bleeding duodenal ulcer who are at risk of further bleeding.

Endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers: 1:10000 adrenalin injection vs. 1:10000 adrenalin +1% aethoxysclerol injection vs. heater probe

To evaluate the efficacy of three endoscopic methods which utilize different mechanisms of hemostasis to control bleeding peptic ulcers, we performed a prospective randomized study in 83 patients. Thirty-two patients were treated with 1:10000 adrenalin (Group I), 29 patients with 1:10000 adrenalin +1% aethoxysclerol (Group II), and 22 patients with the heater probe (Group III). Gastric ulcers were the source of bleeding in 14, 15 and 12 patients while duodenal ulcers were the source in 16, 13 and 10 patients in Groups I, II and III, respectively. Two stomal ulcers were noted in Group I and 1 in Group II. Two spurters were treated in Group I and 4 in Group II, while 22, 13 and 10 oozers were treated in Groups I, II and III, respectively. Definitive hemostasis was achieved in 94%, 100% and 95% in Groups I, II and III, respectively while the rebleeding rate was 6.25%, 6.9% and 9% respectively. 1:10000 adrenalin injection alone or when combined with subsequent instillation of a sclerosing agent and heater probe application have comparable efficacy in the endoscopic control of bleeding peptic ulcers.

Use of endoscopy in peptic ulcer disease

The diagnosis and treatment of acute bleeding caused by peptic ulcer disease has been greatly facilitated by fiberoptic endoscopy. The basic differentiation between malignant and benign gastric ulcer requires endoscopic confirmation with biopsy. The management of bleeding from peptic ulceration can be enhanced by endoscopic examination as can the prediction of risk for recurrent bleeding or need for surgical intervention. Various therapeutic maneuvers can be performed endoscopically, including monopolar and multipolar cautery, laser and heater probe therapy, and injection of vasoconstrictors to control bleeding. Endoscopic balloon dilation for the management of gastric outlet obstruction is often effective.

Endoscopic injection of adrenaline for severe peptic ulcer haemorrhage in high surgical risk patients

Endoscopic adrenaline-hypertonic injection was attempted in 40 patients admitted for oesophagogastroduodenal ulcer haemorrhage unresponsive to conventional medical treatment and presenting with severe underlying disease or advanced age (less than 80 years). The results were compared with our own historical controls (43 patients) treated by conventional therapy, meeting the same inclusion criteria. Permanent haemostasis was achieved in 32 patients in the injection group and 30 in the control group (NS) but emergency surgery was less frequent in the injection group (2 vs 25, p less than 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements were less in the injection group (8.5 +/- 6.2 vs 10.2 +/- 5.4, p less than 0.05) but length of hospital stay was not really different (15.7 days +/- 9.3 vs 20.9 +/- 14.4). Unfortunately, mortality was not reduced in the injection group (14/40 vs 17/43). Two lethal complications attributable to injection treatment occurred. This treatment could represent an alternative to conventional haemostatic treatment in high surgical risk patients with severe clinical bleeding, avoiding emergency surgery. In spite of the fact that we selected high-risk patients, endoscopic treatment was not able to lower the mortality (about 37%). Due to severe unpredictable side effects and potential risks of long-term massive rebleeding, this treatment should be performed electively in patients with severe clinical bleeding, as first line treatment when surgical risk factors exist or immediately before surgery in low risk patients.

Effect of hemostatic agents in canine gastric serosal blood vessels

The efficacy of various sclerotherapeutic agents in the control of acute bleeding, via subserosal injection, was assessed in 10 dogs. Blood flow rate (BFR) from severed gastric serosal vessels (diameter, 1.6 to 2.2 mm) was measured for 3 min (ml/min) for a control group and the agent used. The agents tested were 5 ml of normal saline (NS), 5 ml of 3% hypertonic saline (HS), 5 ml of 1:10,000 epinephrine in NS, 5 ml of 1:10,000 epinephrine/HS, 5 ml of 1:20,000 epinephrine/HS, 2 ml of old thrombin "cocktail" (thrombin, cephapirin + 1% tetradecyl), and 2 ml of fresh thrombin cocktail (total seven). One agent was tested per dog; there were one to two dogs in each subgroup. All of the agents showed significant reduction in BFR (except old thrombin) when compared with BFR of control vessels. The reduction ranged from 30% to more than 75% after 1:10 epinephrine/HS. Complete hemostasis was achieved in up to 47% of vessels using 1:20 epinephrine/HS. Overall, the epinephrine solutions achieved the best results. No systemic effects were observed with the use of any of the agents. Histological studies showed that epinephrine caused mild tissue damage, whereas the cocktail caused significant tissue necrosis. This serosal vessel model permits comparison of the effectiveness of each agent; however, clinical extrapolation to mucosal vessels in a patient and the long-term histological changes are not known.

Adrenaline injection for endoscopic haemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

Over a 30-month period, 53 patients with actively bleeding non-variceal lesions of the oesophagus, stomach or duodenum were treated by endoscopic injection of 1/10,000 adrenaline. Initial haemostasis was obtained in 50 cases, and permanent haemostasis in 44. Emergency surgery for bleeding was required in nine patients overall, and there were four deaths. All lesions requiring surgery were located on the posterior wall of the duodenum or the lesser curve of the stomach, and all but one had evidence of an exposed arterial vessel. Adrenaline injection is an effective, safe and simple method of endoscopic haemostasis.

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. A comparative study of polidocanol and thrombin

To date several agents have been used to achieve haemostasis in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using endoscopic sclerotherapy techniques. Polidocanol has been widely used but local complications have been reported after treatment. We have compared the efficacy and safety of thrombin and polidocanol in 82 consecutive patients with ongoing or recent bleeding from duodenal, gastric, or anastomotic ulcers. Primary control of haemostasis from spurting vessels was achieved in 90% of cases using polidocanol and in 86.6% using thrombin. Definitive haemostasis was obtained in 80% of patients in both groups. When a non-bleeding vessel was visible, injection of polidocanol or thrombin effectively prevented rebleeding in 90.9% and 85.7% of cases, respectively. When a non-bleeding sentinel clot was present, injection of polidocanol or thrombin provided definitive haemostasis in 100% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. No statistically significant difference was evident between the two agents. In the polidocanol group, one local haemorrhagic complication was noted. No general or local complications were recorded in the thrombin group.

Injection or heat probe for bleeding ulcer

A prospective randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy of endoscopic epinephrine injection and heat probe treatment in actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Emergency endoscopy in 1758 patients over an 18-month period identified 132 patients with active ulcer bleeding. They were randomized to receive either endoscopic epinephrine injection or heat probe treatment. After endoscopy, the patients were transferred to the surgical gastroenterology ward and were managed by surgeons unaware of the treatment option. Bleeding was initially controlled in 96% by epinephrine injection and in 83% by heat probe (P less than 0.05). There was no significant difference in outcome as measured by transfusion requirement (4.5 units vs. 3.8 units), emergency surgery (20% vs. 22%), hospital stay (8 days vs. 7 days), and mortality (2 vs. 4) between the injection group and the heat probe group. Two patients in the heat probe group experienced perforation. We conclude that both endoscopic epinephrine injection and heat probe treatment are effective in stopping bleeding from actively bleeding ulcers. Epinephrine injection is technically easier to perform and has a higher initial success rate.

Effect of submucosal epinephrine injection on local gastric blood flow. A study using laser Doppler flowmetry and reflectance spectrophotometry

Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of submucosal epinephrine injection in the control of bleeding ulcers. Since endoscopic techniques for assessing gastroduodenal blood flow are limited, we employed an animal model to study the mechanism of control of bleeding. The effect of submucosal epinephrine injection on local gastric blood flow was studied in the rat using laser Doppler flowmetry and reflectance spectrophotometry. Submucosal injection of 0.1 ml of 1/10,000 epinephrine caused a significantly greater drop in local gastric blood flow (laser Doppler flowmetry) compared with vehicle (10% sodium metabisulfite) injection. The reduction persisted for up to 120 min. This vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine was confirmed by observations with reflectance spectrophotometry, which documented a pattern of ischemia without congestion (lower index of hemoglobin concentration, lower index of oxygen saturation). The autoregulatory escape from adrenergic vasoconstriction was not evident in either instance. We conclude that, after submucosal injection of epinephrine, the absence of autoregulatory escape from adrenergic vasoconstriction and the marked and prolonged decrease in local gastric blood flow enhance the homeostatic mechanisms (eg, platelets and other coagulative factors) to effect hemostasis in bleeding ulcers.

Heat probe thermocoagulation and pure alcohol injection in massive peptic ulcer haemorrhage: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

We conducted a prospective randomised controlled trial of 137 patients with massive peptic ulcer haemorrhage over a period of 12 months to compare the haemostatic effects of endoscopic heat probe thermocoagulation and pure alcohol injection. Seventy eight patients (56.9%) were in shock at the time of randomisation to the trial. The age, sex, number of patients in shock, haemoglobin value at the time of entry to the trial, number of patients with severe medical illness, location of bleeders, and stigmata of recent haemorrhage were comparable among the heat probe, pure alcohol, and control groups. The initial haemostatic effect of the heat probe was better than that of the pure alcohol injection (44 of 45 v 31 of 46, p = 0.0004). The ultimate haemostasis achieved by the heat probe group (41 of 45) was better than that of the pure alcohol group (31 of 46, p = 0.012) and of controls (24 of 46, p = 0.0001). The duration of hospital stay was shorter for patients in the heat probe group than for the control group (6.2 days v 13.8 days, p less than 0.05). The incidence of emergency surgery was less for the heat probe than the control group (three of 45 v 12 of 46, p = 0.027). The mortality rate was less in the heat probe than in the control group (one of 45 v seven of 46, p = 0.031). We suggest that heat probe thermocoagulation should be the first treatment of choice for arrest of massive peptic ulcer haemorrhage.

Endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer

Several endoscopic modalities have the potential of controlling major, life-threatening ulcer bleeding. Although none of the modalities has emerged to be more efficacious than the other, current evidence favours thermal methods and injection therapy. When successful, the endoscopic methods are equally safe (associated with a risk of perforation less than 2%), although a rebleeding rate of 10-30% is of concern. Endoscopic therapy is in general operator-dependent, and the experience of a team is probably more important than the choice of equipment. Selection of patients for endoscopic therapy should be based on the identification of high-risk patients who tolerate rebleeding or surgery poorly, and high-risk lesions likely to rebleed. Endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding is simply a new way of applying surgery. Realizing this, it is difficult to understand why therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding ulcer has not yet been widely adopted by surgeons.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Considerable progress has been made in endoscopic hemostasis. Several methods are available. Sclerotherapy of esophageal varices is the procedure of choice for the control of active variceal hemorrhage and for the prevention of recurrent bleeding. For endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding, the nonerosive contact probes (heater probes and BICAP) and injection sclerotherapy are preferred. Several hemostatic modalities should be available and applied depending on the anatomic location and type of bleeding lesions. Advanced endoscopic hemostatic techniques seem to be decreasing the mortality rates in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Controlled study of different sclerosing agents for coagulation of canine gut arteries

Excellent clinical results have been reported with sclerotherapy for control of nonvariceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, there are few controlled or comparative data on different sclerosing agents for treatment of lesions with active arterial bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels. In a controlled, randomized study of canine small bowel arteries our purposes were (a) to evaluate the efficacy for arterial coagulation of six sclerosing agents compared with normal saline control, (b) to compare the resultant tissue injury of agents, and (c) to elucidate the possible mechanisms of arterial coagulation and tissue injury of the agents. The agents evaluated were (a) 98% ethanol, (b) TES, a mixture with final concentration of 1% tetradecyl sulfate, 32% ethanol, and 0.3 normal saline, (c) 1% polidocanol (Ethoxysclerol), (d) 1:10,000 epinephrine, (e) 7.2% hypertonic saline, (f) 3.6% hypertonic saline, and (g) 0.9% saline (normal saline control). Agents were injected from the mucosal side of the small bowel into and around the pentrating serosal arteries in the subserosal space. Ethanol and TES were the most effective agents for arterial coagulation. Polidocanol was less effective than ethanol and TES. However, it was the only other agent that induced significant arterial coagulation. Alcohol and TES also caused significant injury in surrounding tissue. The degree of this injury was dependent on the total volume injected. Epinephrine induced significant mucosal damage without significant serosal injury or arterial coagulation. The coagulation and tissue injury effects of hypertonic saline injections were not significantly different from normal saline control.

Endoscopic haemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

Endoscopic haemostasis can be effective in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and should be regarded as potential front-line treatment. Diverse methods are available, and although no single technique has become firmly established, current evidence favours thermal coagulation and injection therapy.

Endoscopic injection of adrenaline for actively bleeding ulcers: a randomised trial

A prospective randomised trial was performed to assess the efficacy of endoscopic injection of adrenaline for actively bleeding ulcers. Emergency endoscopy in 961 patients admitted for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage identified 68 patients with actively bleeding ulcers. These 68 patients were randomised to receive either endoscopic injection of adrenaline or no endoscopic treatment. After endoscopy both groups were managed in an identical manner, and strict criteria for emergency operation were adhered to in both groups. Bleeding was initially controlled in all 34 patients assigned to the treatment group. Significantly fewer patients in the treatment group than in the control group needed emergency operations (five v 14, respectively). In addition, in the treatment group the median transfusion requirement was significantly less (three v five units of blood) and the median hospital stay shorter (six v eight days). No complications were observed with the injection of adrenaline, and the rate of healing of ulcers in those attending for endoscopy six weeks after discharge was similar in both groups (81% (17 out of 21 patients) in the treatment group v 79% (11 out of 14) in the control group). Injection of adrenaline is effective in stopping bleeding from actively bleeding ulcers.

Heater-probe treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers

Fifty-six patients with actively bleeding peptic ulcers were treated with the heater-probe unit. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 48 patients (85.7%). The mean number of heater-probe applications was 6.7 pulses at a setting of 25-30 J. Rebleeding occurred in 11 patients (19.6%). Five were successfully treated with repeat heater-probe treatment, 5 required emergency surgery, and 1 rebleeding was stopped by adrenaline injection. The complications included one perforation in a patient with duodenal ulcer. The overall mortality was 2/56 (3.6%). Heater-probe treatment is an effective and safe haemostatic method for controlling actively bleeding ulcers.

Controlled trial of endoscopic sclerosis in bleeding peptic ulcers

Of 113 patients in whom endoscopy revealed a bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcer 55 were randomly allocated to receive endoscopic sclerosis (ES) (injections of adrenaline/polidocanol) plus cimetidine while 58 received cimetidine alone as controls. 3 patients treated with ES (5.5%) compared with 25 controls (43.1%) had a major recurrent haemorrhage during their hospital stay. ES also led to significant reductions in the need for emergency surgery (3 vs 20 patients), transfusion requirements (mean 0.42 [SD 1.1] vs 2.7 (3.19) U), and the length of hospital stay (11.6 [5.1] vs 16.2 [11.3] days). ES as an adjunct to conventional medical treatment is an effective and safe emergency therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcer.