Success of endoscopic injection therapy in correlation with maximal one-day transfusion requirement

Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Determining the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) may be useful for establishing additional haemostatic measures in very high-risk patients.

AIM

To identify predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches were performed to identify studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for PUB. All searches and data abstraction were performed in duplicate. A parameter was considered to be an independent predictor of rebleeding when it was detected as prognostic by multivariate analyses in ≥2 studies. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) were calculated for prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the prespecified inclusion criteria. Pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Haemodynamic instability: significant in 9 of 13 studies evaluating the variable (pOR: 3.30, 95% CI: 2.57-4.24); (ii) Haemoglobin value: significant in 2 of 10 (pOR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.62) and (iii) Transfusion: significant in two of six (pOR not calculable). Endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Active bleeding: significant in 6 of 12 studies (pOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.31-2.22); (ii) Large ulcer size: significant in 8 of 12 studies (pOR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.98-4.00); (iii) Posterior duodenal ulcer location: significant in four of eight studies (pOR: 3.83, 95% CI: 1.38-10.66) and (iv) High lesser gastric curvature ulcer location: significant in three of eight studies (pOR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.69-4.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Major predictors for rebleeding in patients receiving endoscopic therapy are haemodynamic instability, active bleeding at endoscopy, large ulcer size, ulcer location, haemoglobin value and the need for transfusion. These risk factors may be useful for guiding clinical management in patients with PUB.

Factors related to the failure of endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding gastric ulcer

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic injection therapy is effective in controlling initial haemorrhage from peptic ulcer, between 10% to 30% of patients suffer rebleeding.

AIM

To assess the factors that may predict the failure of endoscopic injection in patients bleeding from high risk gastric ulcer.

SUBJECTS

One hundred and seventy eight patients admitted for a gastric ulcer with a bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were included.

METHODS

Patients received endoscopic therapy by injection for adrenaline and polidocanol. Twelve clinical and endoscopic variables were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to ascertain their significance as predictive factor of therapeutic failure.

RESULTS

Eighty seven per cent (155 of 178) of patients had no further bleeding after endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic injection failed in 23 (13%) patients: 20 (12%) continued to bleed or rebleed, and three (1%) patients could not be treated because of inaccessibility of the lesion. Logistic regression analysis showed that therapeutic failure was significantly related to: (1) the presence of hypovolaemic shock (p = 0.09, OR 2.38, 95% CI: 0.86, 6.56), (2) the presence of active bleeding at endoscopy (p = 0.02, OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.12, 7.91), (3) ulcer location high on the lesser curvature (p = 0.04, OR 2.79, 95% CI: 1.01, 7.69), and (4) ulcer size larger than 2 cm (p = 0.01, OR 3.64, 95% CI: 1.34, 9.89).

CONCLUSION

These variables may enable identification of those patients bleeding from gastric ulcer who would not benefit from injection therapy.