Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding proximal to the ligament of Treitz in the absence of oesophageal, gastric or duodenal varices. The clinical presentation varies according to the intensity of bleeding from occult bleeding to melena or haematemesis and haemorrhagic shock. Causes of UGIB are peptic ulcers, Mallory-Weiss lesions, erosive gastritis, reflux oesophagitis, Dieulafoy lesions or angiodysplasia. After admission to the hospital a structured approach to the patient with acute UGIB that includes haemodynamic resuscitation and stabilization as well as pre-endoscopic risk stratification has to be done. Endoscopy offers not only the localisation of the bleeding site but also a variety of therapeutic measures like injection therapy, thermocoagulation or endoclips. Endoscopic therapy is facilitated by acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. These drugs are highly effective but the best route of application (oral vs intravenous) and the adequate dosage are still subjects of discussion. Patients with ulcer disease are tested for Helicobacter pylori and eradication therapy should be given if it is present. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have to be discontinued if possible. If discontinuation is not possible, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in combination with PPI have the lowest bleeding risk but the incidence of cardiovascular events is increased.

Second look endoscopy in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Bleeding peptic ulcer remained an important cause of hospitalization worldwide. Primary endoscopic hemostasis achieved more than 90% of initial hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcer. Recurrent bleeding amounted to 15% after therapeutic endoscopy, and rebleeding is an important risk factor to peptic ulcer related mortality. Routine second look endoscopy was one of the strategies targeted at prevention of rebleeding. The objective of second look endoscopy was to treat persistent stigmata of recent hemorrhage before rebleeding. Three meta-analyses showed that performance of routine second look endoscopy significantly reduced ulcer rebleeding especially when the endoscopic therapy was performed with thermal coagulation. Two cost-effectiveness analyses, however, demonstrated that selective instead of routine second look endoscopy is the most cost-effective approach to prevent ulcer rebleeding. While international consensus and guidelines did not recommend routine performance of second look endoscopy for prevention of ulcer rebleeding, further research should focus on identification of patients with high risk of rebleeding and investigate the effect of selective second look endoscopy in prevention of rebleeding among these patients.

Second-look endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease: a decision-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making.

METHODS

Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented.

RESULTS

In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16% to 10% (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31% to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100% effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5%. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25% and 5%, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20% and 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31% or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.

[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 value of routine second-look endoscopy in the management of the acute gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding

A tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópiák szerepe az akut gastroduodenalis fekélyvérző betegek ellátásában mindmáig ellentmondásos. Endoszkópos és klinikai adatokra alapozott rizikócsoport meghatározására van szükség ahhoz, hogy kiválaszthatóak legyenek azok a betegek, akiknél a tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópia stratégiája hasznosnak bizonyulhat. Célkitűzés: A tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópiák klinikai hasznát kívántuk felmérni akut gastroduodenalis fekélyvérző betegeink klinikai és endoszkópos adatainak retrospektív elemzésével. Módszer: Összesen 274 fekélyvérző beteg adatait elemeztük. A tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópiák hatékonyságának lemérésére az újbóli endoszkópos vérzéscsillapító beavatkozások szükségességét használtuk fel. A betegeket a sürgősségi endoszkópia során észlelt Forrest szerinti fekélystádium alapján csoportosítottuk. Eredmények: Az aktívan vérző fekélybetegek (Forrest Ia, Ib) csoportjában a tervezett endoszkópiák alkalmával 23,8%-ban végeztünk újbóli endoszkópos vérzéscsillapítást. Az ércsonkos fekélyesek (Forrest IIa) csoportjában 13,0%-ban, míg a thrombussal fedett fekélyesek (Forrest IIb) körében 13,3%-ban volt szükség újabb endoszkópos hemosztatikus kezelésre az ellenőrző endoszkópiák kapcsán. Bár a beavatkozások gyakorisága közötti különbségek statisztikailag nem szignifikánsak, mégis klinikailag számottevőnek tartható az, hogy az eredetileg aktívan vérző betegek negyedében hasznos volt a tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópia. Következtetés: Az eredmények arra engednek következtetni, hogy a tervezett ellenőrző endoszkópia stratégiája a kezdetben aktívan vérző és nagy újravérzési kockázatú betegek számára kedvezőbb kórlefolyást ígér.

Clinical trial: intravenous pantoprazole vs. ranitidine for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding: a multicentre, multinational, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Controlled pantoprazole data in peptic ulcer bleeding are few.

AIM

To compare intravenous (IV) pantoprazole with IV ranitidine for bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

After endoscopic haemostasis, 1256 patients were randomized to pantoprazole 80 mg+8 mg/h or ranitidine 50 mg+13 mg/h, both for 72 h. Patients underwent second-look endoscopy on day 3 or earlier, if clinically indicated. The primary endpoint was an overall outcome ordinal score: no rebleeding, rebleeding without/with subsequent haemostasis, surgery and mortality. The latter three events were also assessed separately and together.

RESULTS

There were no between-group differences in overall outcome scores (pantoprazole vs. ranitidine: S0: 91.2 vs. 89.3%, S1: 1.5 vs. 2.5%, S2: 5.4 vs. 5.7%, S3: 1.7 vs. 2.1%, S4: 0.19 vs. 0.38%, P = 0.083), 72-h clinically detected rebleeding (2.9% [95% CI 1.7, 4.6] vs. 3.2% [95% CI 2.0, 4.9]), surgery (1.9% [95% CI 1.0, 3.4] vs. 2.1% [95% CI 1.1, 3.5]) or day-3 mortality (0.2% [95% CI 0, 0.09] vs. 0.3% [95% CI 0, 1.1]). Pantoprazole significantly decreased cumulative frequencies of events comprising the ordinal score in spurting lesions (13.9% [95% CI 6.6, 24.7] vs. 33.9% [95% CI 22.1, 47.4]; P = 0.01) and gastric ulcers (6.7% [95% CI 4, 10.4] vs. 14.3% [95% CI 10.3, 19.2], P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes amongst pantoprazole and ranitidine-treated patients were similar; pantoprazole provided benefits in patients with arterial spurting and gastric ulcers.