Hemostatic clip in gastrointestinal bleeding

Accessory Devices Frequently Used for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being considered an essential component of treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers and subepithelial tumors. The ESD technique owes its popularity to the development of sophisticated instruments used for ESD. With an increase in the number of ESD procedures performed, there is rapid development in the number and types of endoscopic accessory devices used for such procedures. Despite the large numbers of new devices developed and marketed, the use of ESD instruments and accessory devices is largely determined by individual preferences and experiences. Accessory devices frequently used during ESD are important tools for ESD techniques. Each instrument possesses characteristic advantages and disadvantages associated with its use, and no one instrument is superior in all respects to others. In this article, we review the characteristics of endoscopic electrical knives, cap and hood, and hemostatic devices commonly used in ESD.

Successful endoscopic hemoclipping of an esophageal perforation

We describe a case of esophageal perforation that resulted from a fishbone. A 71-year-old man had had a fishbone impacted in the lower esophagus for 2 days. At presentation, the bone was dislodged at endoscopy; one round opening in a deep ulceration was detected when the fishbone was removed. The perforation was closed by endoscopic hemoclipping, after the removal of the fishbone. A thoracic computed tomography revealed air around the esophagus, aorta and bronchus and the presence of a pleural effusion. These findings suggested mediastinal emphysema and mediastinitis due to the esophageal perforation after the removal of the fishbone. Esophagography revealed a focal esophageal defect and linear contrast leakage at the distal esophagus. The mediastinal emphysema and pleural effusion successfully resolved after the endoscopic hemoclip application and conservative management of the perforation.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding--concepts of surgical therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract]

Bleeding of the upper gastrointestinal tract is the main symptom of a variety of possible conditions and still results in considerable mortality. Endoscopy is the first diagnostic modality, enabling rapid therapeutic intervention. In case of intractable or relapsing bleeding, surgery is often inevitable. However, emergency operations result in significantly higher mortality rates. Therefore the option of early elective surgical intervention should be considered for patients at increased risk of relapsing bleeding. If bleeding is symptomatic due to a complex underlying condition such as hemosuccus pancreaticus or hemobilia, angiography is now recognized as the definitive investigation. Angiographic hemostasis can be achieved in most cases. Due to the underlying condition, surgical management still remains the mainstay in treating these patients. This paper reviews surgical strategy in handling upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of bleeding ulcer patients receiving endoscopic epinephrine injection therapy. It remains unclear whether addition of a secondary clip therapy following epinephrine injection may reduce the rebleeding rate of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

One hundred five bleeding ulcer patients with active spurting, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots in ulcer bases.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic combination therapy (n = 52) or diluted epinephrine injection alone (n = 53).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis rates and recurrent bleeding rates.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 51 patients treated with combination therapy and 49 patients with epinephrine injection therapy (98% vs 92%, P = .18). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients in the combination therapy group and 11 patients in the epinephrine injection group (3.8% vs 21%, P = .008). Among the patients with rebleeding, repeated combination therapy was more effective than repeated injection therapy in achieving permanent hemostasis (100% vs 33%, P = .02). No patient required an emergency operation in the combination therapy group. However, 5 patients in the epinephrine injection group underwent emergency surgery to arrest bleeding (0% vs 9%, P = .023).

LIMITATIONS

Treatment outcome of endoscopic hemoclip therapy is related to the techniques of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic combination therapy is superior to epinephrine injection alone in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Endoscopic Hemostasis for Bleeding Gastric Stromal Tumors by Application of Hemoclip

In the past, numerous reports have advocated primary surgical resection as a treatment of choice for bleeding gastric stromal tumors (GIST). There were scarce reports on primary hemostasis with endoscopic therapy. We encountered two patients who presented to our unit with acute bleeding from gastric fundal stromal tumor, in whom we were able to achieved successful endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclip therapy. We describe the management of these cases and reviewed the current management strategies in bleeding gastric stromal tumor.

Endoscopic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Colonoscopy continues to be the primary tool for diagnostic evaluation and management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). With the advent of newer endoscopy delivery therapeutic modalities, the treatment of LGIB has changed dramatically over the decades. The most dramatic change has been the role of surgery, which has been substantially reduced due to the therapeutic colonoscopy. This article reviews recent advances in the endoscopic treatment options in LGIB of the colon and rectum.

Endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation for upper-GI hemorrhage: a comparison of one third and total circumference transparent end hoods

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemostasis for upper-GI hemorrhage often is difficult to achieve if the view of the bleeding lesion is poor because of the presence of mucus, blood, and clots. An end hood that facilitates endoscopic hemostatic procedures while simultaneously allowing irrigation of the bleeding site was designed by us. Based on this design, a one-third partial irrigating end hood was developed, and its usefulness for treatment of non-variceal hemorrhage was evaluated.

METHODS

The end hood was fabricated by drilling a side hole in the cap portion of a transparent end hood. An irrigation tube was glued to the exterior surface over the hole. A "total" (type 1) and a "one-third partial" (type 2) transparent end hood were fabricated. These differ with respect to the proportion of the endoscope circumference that is hooded by the device. The fabricated transparent end hood was placed on the tip of a standard endoscope. With the end hood in place, endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation was performed in 35 patients (type 1 end hood, 18; type 2, 17) with non-variceal upper-GI hemorrhage.

OBSERVATIONS

Hemostatic treatment was enhanced by simultaneous irrigation beneath the end hood, and hemostasis was successfully achieved in 34 of 35 cases. The time required to achieve hemostasis was significantly shorter in the type 2 group than the type 1 group (median 11.8 vs. 16.9 minutes; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The end hood was extremely useful for endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation. The "one-third partial" end hood is superior to the total end hood in terms of duration of time required to achieve hemostasis.

Endoscopic therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients. Although initially employed diagnostically, endoscopy has steadily replaced surgery as a first-line treatment in all but the haemodynamically unstable patient. A vast selection of techniques and devices are now available to the dedicated therapeutic endoscopist, including injection therapy, electrical or thermal coagulation and mechanical banding or clipping. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for targeting treatment is increasing and the development of new technologies, such as capsule endoscopy, is likely to play an important role in future protocols. However, despite numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of different endoscopic interventions, the implementation of obtained results into treatment regimes has so far failed to impact significantly on overall UGIB mortality, which remains stubbornly at 10-14%. Reducing this continues to be one of the main challenges facing the therapeutic endoscopist.

A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip placement and distilled water injection for treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic hemoclip therapy is widely used in the treatment of GI bleeding, there are few prospective trials that assess its efficacy. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of hemoclip placement and distilled water injection for the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage were randomly assigned to either endoscopic hemoclip placement (n = 39) or injection with distilled water (n = 40).

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients treated with hemoclips and 39 treated by distilled water injection (respectively, 100.0% vs. 97.5%; p = 1.00). Bleeding recurred in 4 and 11 of patients, respectively, in the hemoclip and water injection groups. It occurred significantly more frequently in the injection group (hemoclip, 10.3%; injection, 28.2%; p = 0.04). No major procedure-related complication occurred in either group. Emergency operations were performed in 5.1% of patients treated with hemoclips versus 12.5% of those in the water injection group (p = 0.43). Hospital days and mortality rate were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemoclip placement is a safe and effective hemostatic method that is superior to distilled water injection for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.

Endoscopic treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Urgent colonoscopy has emerged as the initial diagnostic and main therapeutic tool in the evaluation and treatment of colonic lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic therapy can effectively treat most cases of colonic bleeding with a demonstrable improvement in clinical outcome parameters. The identification of high-risk stigmata of hemorrhage enables selective targeting of endoscopic therapy to lesions at high risk of rebleeding. Advances in technologies such as novel mechanical methods of hemostasis (eg, metallic clips), injection techniques (eg, cyanoacrylate injection), and the widening application of established endoscopic hemostatic techniques (eg, rubber-band ligation) to colonic lesions offers the possibility of further improvements in the efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis. Clinical trials are needed to compare these novel endoscopic techniques with more conventional approaches to establish the best form of endoscopic therapy for different bleeding lesions and finally to establish more definitively the optimal timing of colonoscopy.