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

[Gastrointestinal bleeding]

GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs frequently in clinical practice. The presence of gastrointestinal bleeding usually is suspected by typical clinical history and results of clinical examination and laboratory findings. Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with high success rates over 90%. Different techniques for endoscopic hemostasis are available and for most indications, a combination of two modalities is recommended. Endoscopic management of recurrent or persistent bleeding is technically more challenging and associated with increased mortality (up to 10%, especially in patients with high age and comorbidities). In this situation, endoscopic hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip has shown to be superior to standard treatment for recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies also have shown superiority for first-line over-the-scope clip treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients. In this review, management of gastrointestinal bleeding is summarized based on current guidelines and current literature.

Nomogram for predicting rebleeding after initial endoscopic epinephrine injection monotherapy hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Although the current guidelines recommend endoscopic combination therapy, endoscopic epinephrine injection (EI) monotherapy is still a simple, common and effective modality for treating peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). However, the rebleeding risk after EI monotherapy is still high, and identifying rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy is unclear, which is highly important in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify risk factors and constructed a predictive nomogram related to rebleeding after EI monotherapy.

Methods

We consecutively and retrospectively analyzed 360 PUB patients who underwent EI monotherapy between March 2014 and July 2021 in our center. Then we identified independent risk factors associated with rebleeding after initial endoscopic EI monotherapy by multivariate logistic regression. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated based on the above predictors.

Results

Among all PUB patients enrolled, 51 (14.2%) had recurrent hemorrhage within 30 days after endoscopic EI monotherapy. After multivariate logistic regression, shock [odds ratio (OR) = 12.691, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.129–31.399, p < 0.001], Rockall score (OR = 1.877, 95% CI 1.250–2.820, p = 0.002), tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) (OR = 2.610, 95% CI 1.098–6.203, p = 0.030), prolonged prothrombin time (PT > 13 s) (OR = 2.387, 95% CI 1.019–5.588, p = 0.045) and gastric ulcer (OR = 2.258, 95% CI 1.003–5.084, p = 0.049) were associated with an increased risk of rebleeding after an initial EI monotherapy treatment. A nomogram incorporating these independent high-risk factors showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.876 (95% CI 0.817–0.934) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We developed a predictive nomogram of rebleeding after EI monotherapy, which had excellent prediction accuracy. This predictive nomogram can be conveniently used to identify low-risk rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy, allowing for decision-making in a clinical setting.

Impact of epinephrine volume on further bleeding due to high-risk peptic ulcer disease in the combination therapy era

BACKGROUND

In monotherapy studies for bleeding peptic ulcers, large volumes of epinephrine were associated with a reduction in rebleeding. However, the impact of epinephrine volume in patients treated with combination endoscopic therapy remains unclear.

AIM

To assess whether epinephrine volume was associated with bleeding outcomes in individuals who also received endoscopic thermal therapy and/or clipping.

METHODS

Data from 132 patients with Forrest class Ia, Ib, and IIa peptic ulcers were reviewed. The primary outcome was further bleeding at 7 d; secondary outcomes included further bleeding at 30 d, need for additional therapeutic interventions, post-endoscopy blood transfusions, and 30-day mortality. Logistic and linear regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There was no association between epinephrine volume and all primary and secondary outcomes in multivariable analyses. Increased odds for further bleeding at 7 d occurred in patients with elevated creatinine values (aOR 1.96, 95%CI 1.30-3.20; P < 0.01) or hypotension requiring vasopressors (aOR 6.34, 95%CI 1.87-25.52; P < 0.01). Both factors were also associated with all secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine maintains an important role in the management of bleeding ulcers, but large volumes up to a range of 10-20 mL are not associated with improved bleeding outcomes among individuals receiving combination endoscopic therapy. Further bleeding is primarily associated with patient factors that likely cannot be overcome by increased volumes of epinephrine. However, in carefully-selected cases where ulcer location or size pose therapeutic challenges or when additional modalities are unavailable, it is conceivable that increased volumes of epinephrine may still be beneficial.

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.

Reduced survival after upper gastrointestinal bleed endoscopy in the COVID-19 era is a secondary effect of the response to the global pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on healthcare systems worldwide with enormous reorganisation undertaken to support 'COVID-centric' services. Non-COVID-19 admissions reduced secondary to public health measures to halt viral transmission. We aimed to understand the impact of the response to COVID-19 on the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeds.

DESIGN/METHODS

A retrospective observational multicentre study comparing outcomes following endoscopy for UGI bleeds from 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020 to the corresponding dates in 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival at 30 days with secondary outcomes of major rebleeding within 30 days postprocedure and intervention at the time of endoscopy.

RESULTS

224 endoscopies for 203 patients with UGI bleeds were included within this study. 19 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. There was a 44.4% reduction in the number of procedures performed between 2019 and 2020. Endoscopies performed for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era were associated with an adjusted reduced 30-day survival (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.67). There was no increased risk of major rebleeding or interventions during this era. Patients with COVID-19 did not have reduced survival or increased complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era is associated with reduced survival. No clear cause has been identified but we suspect that this is a secondary effect of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Urgent work is required to encourage the public to seek medical help if required and to optimise patient pathways to ensure that the best possible care is provided.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Outcomes and Role of Urgent Endoscopy in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and determined if urgent endoscopy is effective.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a Glasgow-Blatchford score greater than 7 who underwent endoscopy for acute nonvariceal UGIB at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, were included. Urgent (<6 h) and elective (6-48 h) endoscopies were defined according to the time to endoscopy after the initial presentation. The primary outcomes were mortality and rebleeding within 28 days of admission.

RESULTS

Among 961 patients, 571 patients underwent urgent endoscopy. The 28-day mortality rate was 2.5%, and the rebleeding rate was 10.4%. There were significant differences in mortality rate (1.6% vs 3.8%), the number of transfused packed red blood cells (2.6 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.1 packs), need for intervention (69.5% vs 53.5%), and embolization (2.8% vs 0.5%), but no differences in rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor use, and length of stay between the urgent and elective endoscopy groups. Mortality was associated with malignancy (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-9.62), cirrhosis (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.85-11.76), urgent endoscopy (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.95), failed primary endoscopic treatment (OR, 15.03; 95% CI, 4.63-48.82), and rebleeding (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.03-7.45). Rebleeding was associated with Forrest I ulcers (OR, 7.67; 95% CI, 2.71-21.69), Forrest II ulcers (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60), and coagulopathy (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy was an independent predictor of lower mortality rate but was not associated with rebleeding in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

Lactate Parameters Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The predictive role of lactate in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) has been suggested. This study evaluated several lactate parameters in terms of predicting outcomes of bleeding patients and sought to establish a new scoring model by combining lactate parameters and the AIMS65 score. A total of 114 patients with NVUGIB who underwent serum lactate level testing at least twice and endoscopic hemostasis within 24 hours after admission were retrospectively analyzed. The associations between five lactate parameters and clinical outcomes were evaluated and the predictive power of lactate parameter combined AIMS65s (L-AIMS65s) and AIMS56 scoring was compared. The most common cause of bleeding was gastric ulcer (48.2%). Lactate clearance rate (LCR) was associated with 30-day rebleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.931; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.872-0.994; P = 0.033). Initial lactate (OR, 1.313; 95% CI, 1.050-1.643; P = 0.017), maximal lactate (OR, 1.277; 95% CI, 1.037-1.573; P = 0.021), and average lactate (OR, 1.535; 95% CI, 1.137-2.072; P = 0.005) levels were associated with 30-day mortality. Initial lactate (OR, 1.213; 95% CI, 1.027-1.432; P = 0.023), maximal lactate (OR, 1.271; 95% CI, 1.074-1.504; P = 0.005), and average lactate (OR, 1.501; 95% CI, 1.150-1.959; P = 0.003) levels were associated with admission over 7 days. Although L-AIMS65s showed the highest area under the curve for prediction of each outcome, differences between L-AIMS65s and AIMS65 did not reach statistical significance. In conclusion, lactate parameters have a prognostic role in patients with NVUGIB. However, they do not increase the predictive power of AIMS65 when combined.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleed (NVUGIB) can be challenging. Hemospray is a novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for NVUGIB. Its efficacy in attaining hemostasis in NVUGIB is promising, particularly with respect to technically difficult lesions. However, most of the currently available data are focused on its application as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate its efficacy as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an addition to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device in NVUGIB.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with Forrest 1a and 1b ulcer treated with hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional endoscopic hemostatic measures between July 2013 and June 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The endpoints were initial hemostasis, 7-day rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, all-cause, and GI-related 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (median age, 75 years, 50% men, 60% Forrest 1a ulcer) were treated with hemostatic spray as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an adjunct to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device. Hemostatic spray was used as a second agent to adrenaline in 40% and as a third agent to combined dual therapy in 60%. Initial hemostasis was attained in 95% with an overall rebleeding rate at 7 days of 16%. There was no difference between the 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates. The combination of hemostatic spray and adrenaline resulted in 100% initial hemostasis and 25% 7-day rebleeding. Similarly, initial hemostasis was achieved in 92% with a 9% rebleeding rate when hemostatic spray was used as the third agent to 2 of the conventional measures. All-cause mortality was 15% with 1 GI-related death (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-center retrospective analysis, hemostatic spray appears promising as an adjunct to conventional methods for NVUGIB, although prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

Endoluminal Instrumentation Is Changing Gastrointestinal Surgery

Advances in endoluminal instrumentation and technology are enabling endoscopists to perform increasingly sophisticated procedures. Indications for these procedures are likely to expand as outcomes studies show they are efficacious and cost-effective. This article highlights several recent advances in endoluminal suturing, dissecting, and ligating and discusses the impact of these advances on the practice of gastrointestinal surgery. Endoluminal suturing offers select patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease a safe and effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Devices designed for endoluminal hemostasis and endoscopic mucosal resection can be used effectively for a broader range of applications and are already being used to perform transluminal surgery in animal models; human trials are forthcoming. Gastrointestinal surgeons should support efforts to critically evaluate endoluminal techniques because they have an opportunity to improve care. Surgical residents planning careers in gastrointestinal surgery need to understand endoscopic techniques and consider their training opportunities.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

First-line endoscopic treatment with OTSC in patients with high-risk non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: preliminary experience in 40 cases

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC; Ovesco, Tübingen, Germany) is a novel endoscopic clipping device designed for tissue approximation. The device has been used in the closure of fistulas and perforations. We hereby report a series of patients with high-risk non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) lesions in whom OTSCs were used as first-line endoscopic treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed data over a period of 12 months from October 2013 to November 2014 from all consecutive patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for acute severe high-risk NVUGIB and were treated with OTSC as primary first-line therapy.

RESULTS

We included forty consecutive patients with mean age 69 years (range 25-94 years). All patients were treated with the non-traumatic version of the OTSC system (23 with the 11 mm version and 17 with the 12 mm version). Indications for OTSC treatment included gastric ulcer with large vessel (Forrest IIa) (n = 8, 20 %), duodenal ulcer (Forrest Ib) (n = 7, 18 %), duodenal ulcer with large vessel (Forrest IIa) (n = 6, 15 %), Dieulafoy's lesion (n = 6, 15 %) and other secondary indications (n = 13, 32 %). Technical success and primary haemostasis were achieved in all patients (100 %). No re-bleeding, need for surgical or radiological embolization treatment or other complications were observed during the follow-up period of 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude OTSC placement as a first-line endoscopic treatment seems to be effective, safe and easy to perform and should be considered in patients with high-risk NVUGIB lesions.

Mechanical Hemostasis Techniques in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

One of the most important advances in gastroenterology has been the use of endoscopic hemostasis techniques to control nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly when high-risk stigmata are present. Several options are available, including injection therapy, sprays/topical agents, electrocautery, and mechanical methods. The method chosen depends on the nature of the lesion and experience of the endoscopist. This article reviews the available mechanical hemostatic modalities.

A Randomized Trial of Monopolar Soft-mode Coagulation Versus Heater Probe Thermocoagulation for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Thermal coagulation is one of the most commonly used methods, with a high success rate. Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric carcinoma was developed and hemostasis with soft coagulation using hemostatic forceps was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic efficacy of soft coagulation with heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients who visited our hospital with hematemesis or melena underwent emergency endoscopy. Inclusion criteria were presentation with an actively bleeding ulcer, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or an adherent clot. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to give written informed consent or had a bleeding gastric malignancy. Patients were randomized to receive endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group S) or heater probe thermocoagulation (Group H). The primary endpoint was the primary hemostasis rate and secondary endpoints were rebleeding rate, complications, and the procedure time.

RESULTS

Between May 2010 and February 2012, a total of 111 patients (89 gastric ulcers and 22 duodenal ulcers) were enrolled. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 54 patients (96%) in Group S and 37 (67%) in Group H (P<0.0001). Rebleeding occurred in 7 patients in Group H and none in Group S. Of these 7 patients, urgent surgery was performed in 1. Perforation occurred in 2 patients in Group H, which was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, soft coagulation using monopolar hemostatic forceps is more effective than heater probe thermocoagulation for achieving hemostasis.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding - a new approach to clinical and endoscopic management

Overt or occult gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequently observed condition in routine gastroenterological practice. Occult gastrointestinal bleeding is usually a purely incidental finding, based on the discovery of iron deficiency anemia in the laboratory or blood in stool (a positive Hemoccult test). However, overt bleeding accompanied by the clinical features of tarry stool, hematemesis, or hematochezia may be a life-threatening condition, calling for immediate emergency management. In contrast to traumatology, algorithms of emergency and intensive medicine are not sufficiently validated yet for acute life-threatening bleeding. The purpose of this review was to present all established and new endoscopic hemostasis techniques and to evaluate their efficacy, as well as to provide the treating endoscopist with practical advice on how he/she could incorporate these procedures into acute medical management. The recommendations are based on inspection of the study results in the recent published literature, as well as emergency medicine algorithms in traumatology.

Upper gastrointestinal active bleeding ulcers: review of literature on the results of endoscopic techniques and our experience with Hemospray

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding can lead from mild to immediately life-threatening clinical conditions. Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is associated with a mortality of 6-10%. Spurting and oozing bleeding are associated with major risk of failure. Hemospray™ (TC-325), a new hemostatic powder, may be useful in these cases. Aim of this study is to review the efficacy of traditional endoscopic treatment in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers and to investigate the usefulness of Hemospray in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed and articles that evaluated hemostatic efficacy and rebleeding rate with traditional endoscopic techniques related to Forrest classification were reviewed. Patients with Forrest 1a-1b ulcers were treated with Hemospray, either as monotherapy or in association with other endoscopic techniques. Primary outcome was immediate hemostasis, secondary outcomes were recurrent bleeding and adverse events related to Hemospray use.

RESULTS

Analysis of literature showed that mean initial hemostasis success rate in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers was of 92.8%, and mean rebleeding rate was of 13.3%. We enrolled 13 patients treated with Hemospray. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 100% and we reported three cases of rebleeding. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Forrest 1a-1b bleeding ulcer is very difficult to treat. Hemospray appears to be an effective hemostatic therapy for these ulcers. However, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

Absence of Helicobacter pylori is not protective against peptic ulcer bleeding in elderly on offending agents: lessons from an exceptionally low prevalence population

Aim. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is exceptionally rare in population from the north-eastern region of Peninsular Malaysia. This provides us an opportunity to contemplate the future without H. pylori in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Methods. All cases in the GI registry with GI bleeding between 2003 and 2006 were reviewed. Cases with confirmed non-variceal aetiology were analysed. Rockall score > 5 was considered high risk for bleeding and primary outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality, recurrent bleeding and need for surgery.

Results. The incidence of non-variceal upper GI bleeding was 2.2/100,000 person-years. Peptic ulcer bleeding was the most common aetiology (1.8/100,000 person-years). In-hospital mortality (3.6%), recurrent bleeding (9.6%) and need for surgery (4.0%) were uncommon in this population with a largely low risk score (85.2% with score ≤5). Elderly were at greater risk for bleeding (mean 68.5 years, P = 0.01) especially in the presence of duodenal ulcers (P = 0.04) despite gastric ulcers being more common. NSAIDs, aspirin and co-morbidities were the main risk factors.

Conclusions. The absence of H. pylori infection may not reduce the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding in the presence of risk factors especially offending drugs in the elderly.

The efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization as the first-choice treatment after failure of endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopic treatment resistance factors

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) as the first-choice treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after the failure of endoscopic hemostasis. An additional objective was to clarify endoscopic treatment resistance factors.

METHODS

Between April 2004 and December 2010, 554 patients were admitted to Kasugai Municipal Hospital for necessary endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding gastric ulcer or duodenal ulcer. In the patients for whom endoscopic hemostasis failed, TAE was attempted. If TAE failed, the patients underwent surgery. The backgrounds of the patients in whom endoscopic treatment was successful and in whom it failed were compared.

RESULTS

TAE was attempted in 15 patients (2.7%). In 12 (80.0%) of 15 patients, embolization with coils was successful. In one patient (6.7%), embolization was ineffective. This patient underwent emergent salvage surgery. In two (13.3%) of 15 patients, no extravasation was observed during arteriography. These patients were cured with medication. In two patients, ulcer perforation was observed during endoscopy after rebleeding. These patients underwent surgery. In total, 3 (0.5%) of 554 patients underwent surgery. No recurrent bleeding was observed after TAE. Hemoglobin level <8 g/dL at presentation (P = 0.02), Rockall score ≥7 at presentation (P = 0.002), and Forrest class Ia/Ib at initial endoscopic hemostasis (P < 0.001) were found to be independent significant endoscopic treatment resistance factors.

CONCLUSIONS

TAE is a safe and effective first-choice treatment for patients in whom endoscopic hemostasis has failed.

Prospective, randomized comparison of 3 different hemoclips for the treatment of acute upper GI hemorrhage in an established experimental setting

BACKGROUND

Recently, endoscopic clip application devices have undergone redesign and improvements to optimize their clinical use and effectiveness. Initially designed for the treatment of bleeding nonvariceal lesions, these devices are also increasingly used for the closure of perforations, fistulas, and anastomotic leaks. Several clinical studies, both randomized and nonrandomized, have used endoscopic hemoclips for hemostasis. However, no comparative studies have yet been reported in the literature comparing the latest endoscopic clip devices for usability and effectiveness for hemostasis of acute upper GI hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the usability and efficacy of 3 different types of endoscopic clip application devices in an established experimental setting by using a porcine ex-vivo simulator of upper GI hemorrhage.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, ex-vivo study.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

Spurting vessels were created within ex-vivo porcine stomachs as published in prior studies. The vessels were attached to a pressure transducer to record the pressure of the circulating blood replacement. Before the initiation of bleeding, each vessel was randomized to 1 of 3 endoscopic clipping devices: 2 different commonly used hemoclips deployed through the working channel and 1 novel clip deployed via an over-the-scope applications device. Two investigators treated 45 bleeding sites (15 bleeding sites for each device at various randomized locations in the stomach: fundus, body, and antrum).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Usability was measured via the endpoints of procedure time and quantity of clips required to achieve hemostasis. Efficacy was measured via the endpoint of pressure increase (Δp) from baseline to after treatment.

RESULTS

All of the 45 hemostasis treatments were carried out successfully. The mean procedure times were significantly different among the hemoclips, with the clip deployed in an over-the-scope fashion requiring significantly less time to attain hemostasis compared with the other 2 clips. For number of clips needed to attain hemostasis, the clip deployed in an over-the-scope fashion was significantly superior to the others. There were also significant differences among the changes in pressure (Δp ± SD) among the different hemoclips tested.

LIMITATIONS

Ex-vivo study.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective, randomized ex-vivo study, we observed significant differences in the usability (time to achieve hemostasis and number of clips required) and the efficacy (change in pressure achieved by the hemoclips) among the 3 clips. The clip applied in the over-the-scope fashion was superior to the other 2 tested clips with regard to time to achieve hemostasis and number of clips required.

Effectiveness of endoclips for the treatment of stigmata of recent hemorrhage in the colon of patients with acute lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding

AIMS AND METHODS

Coaptive thermo coagulation (CTC) for the treatment of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in the colon is risky. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of endoclips in 13 patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Thirty-day re-bleeding and complication rates were comparable to a historical cohort of 41 patients (group 2) who underwent CTC/IE (injection epinephrine) for the management of acute lower GIB.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the 30-day re-bleeding rates in the two groups. In group I, immediate hemostasis was successful in all patients. Three of 13 patients (23.1%) developed re-bleeding. In group II, 41 patients from six prior studies underwent CTC and/or IE for the treatment of HRS where 12 (29.3%) developed re-bleeding. There were no immediate complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoclip deployment is as effective as CTC and/or IE for treatment of SRH in the colon.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the usefulness of rotational angiography after endoscopic marking with a metallic clip

Objective

We wanted to assess the usefulness of rotational angiography after endoscopic marking with a metallic clip in upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients with no extravasation of contrast medium on conventional angiography.

Materials and Methods

In 16 patients (mean age, 59.4 years) with acute bleeding ulcers (13 gastric ulcers, 2 duodenal ulcers, 1 malignant ulcer), a metallic clip was placed via gastroscopy and this had been preceded by routine endoscopic treatment. The metallic clip was placed in the fibrous edge of the ulcer adjacent to the bleeding point. All patients had negative results from their angiographic studies. To localize the bleeding focus, rotational angiography and high pressure angiography as close as possible to the clip were used.

Results

Of the 16 patients, seven (44%) had positive results after high pressure angiography as close as possible to the clip and they underwent transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) with microcoils. Nine patients without extravasation of contrast medium underwent TAE with microcoils as close as possible to the clip. The bleeding was stopped initially in all patients after treatment of the feeding artery. Two patients experienced a repeat episode of bleeding two days later. Of the two patients, one had subtle oozing from the ulcer margin and that patient underwent endoscopic treatment. One patient with malignant ulcer died due to disseminated intravascular coagulation one month after embolization. Complete clinical success was achieved in 14 of 16 (88%) patients. Delayed bleeding or major/minor complications were not noted.

Conclusion

Rotational angiography after marking with a metallic clip helps to localize accurately the bleeding focus and thus to embolize the vessel correctly.

Hemodynamic efficacy of sequential hemoclip application using the Olympus HX-110/610 reloadable clipping device in spurting bleedings

BACKGROUND

Hemoclip application in GI-hemorrhage has proven to be effective. Clinical experience shows that multiple clips are frequently necessary. In 2005, an easily reloadable clip-applicator was introduced. We evaluated the hemodynamic efficacy of this new device.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We prospectively compared the new clipping device (Olympus HX 110/610) in a validated experimental setting using the compactEASIE®-simulator for GI bleeding. The artificial blood circulation system in the simulator was connected to a pressure transducer. Four investigators of different endoscopic experience (1000-6000 endoscopies) treated 12 bleeding sources each, with up to 6 clips for each bleeding location. Pressures were recorded to objectify the additive effects of sequential clip application on the reduction in vessel diameter. The intervention was abandoned if a maximum measurable pressure of 300 mmHg was achieved.

RESULTS

Hemoclip application led to a significant increase of peak pressure (91±100 mmHg, p<0.001) and mean pressure (95±99 mmHg, p<0.001), representing a significant reduction in vessel diameter. Pooled data showed a significant stepwise increase in mean and maximum system pressure, resulting in reduction of vessel diameter up to the fifth hemoclip. On average, 5 clips (range 1-6) were used. More experienced endoscopists achieved a higher increase in mean pressure (167 and 118 mmHg vs 72 and 23 mmHg, p<0.05). Mean reloading time was 39 seconds (19-49 sec).

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential application of multiple hemoclips led to an increasing effect, comparable to the results of previous clinical trials. The number of hemoclips applied correlated inversely, but not significantly, with the endoscopist´s experience. Expensive single-use clips appear dispensable in view of the short reloading time.

Evaluation of hemostasis with soft coagulation using endoscopic hemostatic forceps in comparison with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic high-frequency soft coagulation, recently developed in Japan, is available for the management of gastric bleeding in cases of bleeding gastric ulcers and bleeding during endoscopic submucosal dissection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of hemostasis with soft coagulation for bleeding gastric ulcers by comparing it with hemoclips in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

During the period of April 2006 to March 2008, 96 patients that had gastric ulcers with bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were enrolled in this study. All of the 96 patients were randomly divided into two groups: endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group I) or endoscopic hemoclipping (Group II).

RESULTS

A total of 41 (85%) out of 48 patients in Group I and 38 (79%) out of 48 patients in Group II were successfully treated with soft coagulation or clipping alone, respectively. The endoscopic hemostasis rate for the initial modality in combination with another endoscopic procedure performed after the initial method was 98% in both groups. One patient in Group I (2%) and five patients in Group II (10%) experienced recurrent bleeding. The time required to achieve hemostasis was shorter in Group I compared with Group II (9.2 +/- 11.1 vs. 13.6 +/- 9.4 min; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that soft coagulation is as effective as hemoclipping for treating bleeding gastric ulcers. The time required to achieve hemostasis was shorter with the soft coagulation procedure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

[Guidelines of treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer disease]

Peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding is the main cause of non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Negative outcomes include re-bleeding and death, and many of the deaths are associated with decompensation of coexisting medical conditions precipitated by acute bleeding event. Accurate analysis of risk for clinical features can help physician to decide treatment modality. Endoscopy can detect bleeding stigmata and perform therapeutic hemostasis. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared with placebo or H2RA reduces mortality following PU bleeding among patients with high-risk endoscopic findings, and reduces re-bleeding rates and surgical intervention. PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) at index endoscopy but does not reduce mortality, re-bleeding or the need for surgery. The strategy of giving oral PPI before and after endoscopy, with endoscopic hemostasis for those with major SRH, is likely to be the most cost-effective. The treatment of H. pylori infection was found to be more effective than anti-secretory therapy in preventing recurrent bleeding from PU. H. pylori eradication alone and eradication followed by misoprostol (with switch to PPI, if misoprostol is not tolerated) are the two most cost-effective strategies to prevent ulcer bleeding among H. pylori-infected NSAID users, although the data cannot exclude PPIs also being cost-effective treatment. This review focuses specifically on the current treatment of patients with acute bleeding from a peptic ulcer.

The use of endoclips in the treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

A total of 4261 patients were evaluated.

OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study was to determine appropriate endoscopic treatment of patients with bleeding ulcers by synthesizing results of randomized controlled trials. We performed dual independent bibliographic database searches to identify randomized trials of thermal therapy, injection therapy, or clips for bleeding ulcers with active bleeding, visible vessels, or clots, focusing on results from studies without second-look endoscopy and re-treatment. The primary end point was further (persistent plus recurrent) bleeding. Compared with epinephrine, further bleeding was reduced significantly by other monotherapies (relative risk [RR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.93]; number-needed-to-treat [NNT], 9 [95% CI, 5-53]), and epinephrine followed by another modality (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23-0.50]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 5-7]); epinephrine was not significantly less effective in studies with second-look and re-treatment. Compared with no endoscopic therapy, further bleeding was reduced by thermal contact (heater probe, bipolar electrocoagulation) (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.36-0.54]; NNT, 4 [95% CI, 3-5]) and sclerosant therapy (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-13]). Clips were more effective than epinephrine (RR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09-0.55]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-9]), but not different than other therapies, although the latter studies were heterogeneous, showing better and worse results for clips. Endoscopic therapy was effective for active bleeding (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43]; NNT, 2 [95% CI, 2-2]) and a nonbleeding visible vessel (RR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.40-0.59]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-6]), but not for a clot. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy significantly improved outcome compared with placebo/no therapy (RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28-0.59]; NNT, 12 [95% CI, 10-18]), but not compared with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists. Thermal devices, sclerosants, clips, and thrombin/fibrin glue appear to be effective endoscopic hemostatic therapies. Epinephrine should not be used alone. Endoscopic therapy should be performed for ulcers with active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessels, but efficacy is uncertain for clots. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion intravenous proton pump inhibitor should be used after endoscopic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for obscure GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic haemostasis

Endoscopic haemostasis should be attempted as the initial approach in most cases of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, although cross-disciplinary collaboration is a prerequisite. For variceal bleeding, band ligation is the method of choice in the elective setting, although injection therapy still has a role in acute bleeding. Histoacryl remains preferable for fundic varices in most parts of the world. For peptic ulcer bleeds, injection therapy should be combined with at least one 'mechanical' modality, thermal treatment or clipping. In rebleeding, a single endoscopic retreatment can be attempted, but alternative approaches must be considered. Acute lower GI bleeding is primarily a diagnostic challenge but, if the focus is found, the regular techniques for haemostasis can usually be applied. If small bowel haemorrhage is suspected after upper and lower endoscopy, capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy offer make it possible to address even small bowel foci.

Endoscopic clipping for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic clipping

Endoscopic clips are relatively new devices that have been shown to be effective for the control of acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Various different models are available and offer simplicity of use with relatively few complications. Recently, endoscopic clips have been used for a variety of non-hemorrhagic conditions. In this article we review the literature and present current thinking about the indications, efficacy and safety of these devices.

Current endoscopic and pharmacological therapy of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most significant complication of ulcer disease, remaining the most important reason for upper gastrointestinal bleeding even in the era of Helicobacter eradication. Endoscopic triage and management plays a vital role in the handling of these patients, albeit in close collaboration with radiological and surgical expertise. Injection therapy, preferably with large volume epinephrine remains a core technology. Histoacryl and fibrin glue are more costly and less widely adopted alternatives. Mechanical measures are attractive and clips offer an excellent solution, particularly in soft tissues, and in combination with initial injection. Thermal methods with coagulation and coaptive axial force have similar performance characteristics. Increasingly, the combination of injection therapy with either a mechanical or thermal method appears the best option to achieve permanent haemostasis. PPIs for potent acid inhibition improves the clotting regardless of other treatment modalities. In the setting of rebleeding, patient and ulcer factors determine whether repeat endoscopy should be attempted, but the surgeon should be close at hand in this situation.

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second haemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing endoscopic treatment: epinephrine alone versus epinephrine associated with a second haemostatic method in adults with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by the Forrest classification. Bleeding must have been confirmed by endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 1763 people were included. Adding a second procedure reduced further bleeding rate from 18.8% to 10.4%; Peto Odds Ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.66, and emergency surgery from 10.8% to 7.1%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89. Mortality fell from 5% to 2.5% OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82. Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.