Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Current status and future challenges in the endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children

PURPOSE

This study aimed to elucidate the characteristics of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) in children and the outcomes of endoscopic hemostasis (EH) performed by pediatric surgeons.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of pediatric patients with NVUGIB who had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at our hospital, between December 2006 and March 2020.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included. The most common endoscopic diagnosis was gastritis (28%), followed by gastric ulcer (25%) and duodenal ulcer (25%). Thirty patients (83%) had underlying diseases, including a recent viral infection (39%), followed by Helicobacter pylori infection (14%). Fourteen patients (39%) underwent EH, exhibiting a high initial rate of hemostasis (100%). This was achieved in 12/14 patients by clipping. One patient was treated using a combination of a hypersaline and epinephrine (HSE) injection and coagulation therapy, as the ulcer exceeded the width of the hemoclips. Rebleeding occurred in one patient (7.1%) initially treated with pure ethanol injections. The partial view of the pediatric duodenum prevented the placement of hemoclips; hence, the patient was treated using a combination of HSE and coagulation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Clipping, injection, and/or coagulation therapy can lead to high success rates for hemostasis, considering the anatomical characteristics in a pediatric population.

The Use of Higher Dose Steroids Increases the Risk of Rebleeding After Endoscopic Hemostasis for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that several factors such as hemodynamic instability at admission are risk factors for rebleeding of peptic ulcer bleeding. However, whether steroid use increases the risk of rebleeding remains elusive.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the risk factors for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding at our institution between 2005 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. We evaluated factors, including comorbid conditions, in-hospital onset, and steroid use, associated with rebleeding by logistic regression analysis. In addition, we investigated the association between the dose of steroids and rebleeding.

RESULTS

The rebleeding rate after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding was 14.6%. In the multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for rebleeding were steroid use (odds ratio 4.56, p = 0.015), multiple ulcers (4.43, p = 0.005), number of comorbidities ≥ 3 3.18, p = 0.026), hemodynamic instability (3.06, p = 0.039), and number of comorbidities ≥ 3 (2.93, p = 0.047). Furthermore, the use of higher dose steroids (≥ 20 mg per day in prednisolone; 10.55, p = 0.002), but not lower dose (< 20 mg per day in prednisolone), was an independent risk factor for rebleeding in the multivariate analysis. The relationship between steroid use and rebleeding was observed in a dose-dependent manner (p for trend = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This study first revealed that using higher dose steroids was an independent risk factor for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding, with a dose-response relation.

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.

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.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in central Greece: the role of clinical and endoscopic variables in bleeding outcome

The objectives of this work were to portray the incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in central Greece and to define subsets at higher risk of poor outcome or death. Two hundred and sixty-four cases were recorded. The incidence was 116 per 100,000 per year (95% CI: 102-130). Re-bleeding was noted in 7.9% of patients. The case fatality was 7.2% and population mortality 8 per 100,000 per year (95% CI: 4-12). Independently significant risk factors for re-bleeding were stigmata of bleeding at endoscopy (OR: 3.11; 95% CI: 1.06-9.13, P = 0.04), smoking (OR: 3.39; 95% CI: 1.08-10.62, P = 0.03), and the use of anti-coagulant drugs (OR: 2.64; 95% CI: 1.00-7.13, P = 0.05), while the independently significant risk factor for death was re-bleeding (OR: 5.74; 95% CI: 1.40-23.52, P = 0.03). We conclude that patients with stigmata of bleeding at endoscopy and on anti-coagulant therapy should be under close surveillance because of the higher risk of re-bleeding. Smoking also increases the risk of re-bleeding. Patients with re-bleeding episodes must be managed intensively because of the higher risk of death.

[Vascular gastric anomalies as a cause of relapsing bleeding]

BACKGROUND

Although relatively rare, gastric vascular anomalies can be recognized as a source of both chronic and acute blood loss, most often presenting as long term iron deficiency anemia, rarely as severe acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

CASE REPORT

We present five patients with various gastric vascular anomalies, diagnosed during the year of 2003. in the Clinical Hospital Center Zemun. The diagnosis was based on endoscopic appearances, clinical history and characteristic histological findings. Gastric vascular anomalies presented in our review were: portal hypertensive gastropathy, gastric antral vascular ectasia, angiodysplasia, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia and Dieulafoy lesion. The used treatment modalities included surgery and various endoscopic techniques (schlerotherapy, argon plasma coagulation).

CONCLUSION

Patients presented with chronic iron deficiency anemia or acute and recurrent gastrointestinal hemorrhage should be considered as having one of gastric vascular anomalies.

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.

ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF NON-VARICEAL UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL HAEMORRHAGE

Endoscopy plays a central role in the diagnosis and treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Advances in endoscopic techniques, supported by an increasing body of high quality data, have rendered endoscopy the first-line diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for the patient presenting with an upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. However, endoscopic intervention must be considered in the context of the overall management of the bleeding patient, often with significant comorbidities. Although parameters such as hospitalization duration, transfusion requirements and surgery rates have improved with advances in endoscopic therapy, mortality rates remain relatively static. This review addresses the current status of endoscopic intervention for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Additionally, an overview of important periprocedural management issues is presented.

Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection.

METHODS

An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). 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, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

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