Management of bleeding peptic ulcer in France: a national inquiry

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

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

Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no definite recommendation on the use of dual endoscopic therapy in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether the use of two endoscopic hemostatic procedures improved patient outcomes compared with monotherapy.

METHODS

A search for randomized trials comparing dual therapy (i.e., epinephrine injection plus other injection or thermal or mechanical method) versus monotherapy (injection, thermal, or mechanical alone) was performed between 1990 and 2006. Heterogeneity between studies was tested with chi(2) and explained by metaregression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2,472 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, dual endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding (OR [odds ratio] 0.59 [0.44-0.80], P= 0.0001) and the risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89], P= 0.03) and showed a trend toward a reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.68 [0.46-1.02], P= 0.06). Subcategory analysis showed that dual therapy was significantly superior to injection therapy alone for all the outcomes considered, but failed to demonstrate that any combination of treatments is better than either mechanical therapy alone (OR 1.04 [0.45-2.45] for rebleeding, 0.49 [0.50-4.87] for surgery, and 1.28 [0.34-4.86] for death) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.67 [0.40-1.20] for rebleeding, 0.89 [0.45-1.76] for surgery, and 0.51 [0.24-1.10] for death).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual endoscopic therapy proved significantly superior to epinephrine injection alone, but had no advantage over thermal or mechanical monotherapy in improving the outcome of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.