A prospective, randomized trial of large- versus small-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine for peptic ulcer bleeding

Endoscopic Management of Tumor Bleeding: Techniques and Strategies

Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal (GI) tumor-related bleeding is challenging for many reasons including high rebleeding rates, poor tissue response to endoscopic therapies, altered wound healing and underlying coagulopathy. However, endoscopic treatment may help reduce transfusion requirements, avoid surgery, and provide a temporary bridge to oncologic therapy. This article explores various endoscopic techniques in managing tumor bleeding from more traditional approaches of using thermal or mechanical therapy with injection therapy to newer topical agents.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular interventions: An expanding paradigm

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has expanded its arena from a mere diagnostic modality to an essential therapeutic tool in managing gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The proximity of the GI tract to the vascular structures in the mediastinum and the abdomen has facilitated the growth of EUS in the field of vascular interventions. EUS provides important clinical and anatomical information related to the vessels' size, appearance and location. Its excellent spatial resolution, use of colour doppler with or without contrast enhancement and ability to provide images “real-time” helps in precision while intervening vascular structures. Additionally, structures such as venous collaterals or varices can be dealt with optimally using EUS. EUS-guided vascular therapy with coil and glue combination has revolutionized the management of portal hypertension. It also helps to avoid radiation exposure in addition to being minimally invasive. These advantages have led EUS to become an upcoming modality to complement traditional interventional radiology in the field of vascular interventions. EUS-guided portal vein (PV) access and therapy is a new kid on the block. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, injecting chemotherapy in PV and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has expanded the horizons of endo-hepatology. Lastly, EUS has also forayed into cardiac interventions allowing pericardial fluid aspiration and tumour biopsy with experimental data on access to valvular apparatus. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the expanding paradigm of EUS-guided vascular interventions in GI bleeding, portal vein access and its related therapeutic interventions, cardiac access, and therapy. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

Impact of epinephrine volume on further bleeding due to high-risk peptic ulcer disease in the combination therapy era

BACKGROUND

In monotherapy studies for bleeding peptic ulcers, large volumes of epinephrine were associated with a reduction in rebleeding. However, the impact of epinephrine volume in patients treated with combination endoscopic therapy remains unclear.

AIM

To assess whether epinephrine volume was associated with bleeding outcomes in individuals who also received endoscopic thermal therapy and/or clipping.

METHODS

Data from 132 patients with Forrest class Ia, Ib, and IIa peptic ulcers were reviewed. The primary outcome was further bleeding at 7 d; secondary outcomes included further bleeding at 30 d, need for additional therapeutic interventions, post-endoscopy blood transfusions, and 30-day mortality. Logistic and linear regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There was no association between epinephrine volume and all primary and secondary outcomes in multivariable analyses. Increased odds for further bleeding at 7 d occurred in patients with elevated creatinine values (aOR 1.96, 95%CI 1.30-3.20; P < 0.01) or hypotension requiring vasopressors (aOR 6.34, 95%CI 1.87-25.52; P < 0.01). Both factors were also associated with all secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine maintains an important role in the management of bleeding ulcers, but large volumes up to a range of 10-20 mL are not associated with improved bleeding outcomes among individuals receiving combination endoscopic therapy. Further bleeding is primarily associated with patient factors that likely cannot be overcome by increased volumes of epinephrine. However, in carefully-selected cases where ulcer location or size pose therapeutic challenges or when additional modalities are unavailable, it is conceivable that increased volumes of epinephrine may still be beneficial.

Correlation of Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding by Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) via Contact Heat Probe Method (heater probe) with Epinephrine Injection

BACKGROUND

This clinical investigation aimed to compare the efficacy of treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage by argon plasma coagulation (APC) via contact heat probe method (heater probe) along with epinephrine injection.

METHODS

100 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment, were randomly divided into two groups consisting of 50 patients each. In the first group, an intervention was performed using foot pedal and 2.3 mm and 3.2 mm argon probes placed in a 2 to 8 mm distance of delivery place leading to plasma coagulation, sufficient necrosis and hemostasis. In the second group, wound press contact probe was used for wound healing with 15 watts of heat for about 25 degrees, causing coagulation and hemostasis. To evaluate and compare the ulcer treatment in both groups, the patient progress results were monitored for a period of one month from the day of discharge. Statistical analyses of data were performed using SPSS software version 22 along with Chi-square test and T-test.

RESULTS

No significant difference observed in two groups in term of age, sex and clinical symptoms, but patients treated with APC method had higher hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001). The duration of intervention and abdominal bloating in APC group was significantly higher with two cases of re-admission. In HP group, 3 cases (6.3%) had treatment failure and an average transfused blood was significantly higher in the HP group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy treatment duration was significantly lower in patients treated with the HP method due to separate washing route. HP method seems to be more appropriate for treatment of cases with abdominal bloating, distal gastric lesion and HP bulbs.

Reduced survival after upper gastrointestinal bleed endoscopy in the COVID-19 era is a secondary effect of the response to the global pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on healthcare systems worldwide with enormous reorganisation undertaken to support 'COVID-centric' services. Non-COVID-19 admissions reduced secondary to public health measures to halt viral transmission. We aimed to understand the impact of the response to COVID-19 on the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeds.

DESIGN/METHODS

A retrospective observational multicentre study comparing outcomes following endoscopy for UGI bleeds from 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020 to the corresponding dates in 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival at 30 days with secondary outcomes of major rebleeding within 30 days postprocedure and intervention at the time of endoscopy.

RESULTS

224 endoscopies for 203 patients with UGI bleeds were included within this study. 19 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. There was a 44.4% reduction in the number of procedures performed between 2019 and 2020. Endoscopies performed for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era were associated with an adjusted reduced 30-day survival (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.67). There was no increased risk of major rebleeding or interventions during this era. Patients with COVID-19 did not have reduced survival or increased complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy for UGI bleeds in the COVID-19 era is associated with reduced survival. No clear cause has been identified but we suspect that this is a secondary effect of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Urgent work is required to encourage the public to seek medical help if required and to optimise patient pathways to ensure that the best possible care is provided.

Endoscopic treatment modalities and outcomes in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

In nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), the optimal volume of adrenaline, the optimal number of hemoclips, and the application of thermal coagulation in determining patient outcomes have not been well studied.

AIM

To demonstrate a dose-response relationship between the commonly used endoscopic modalities for the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and various clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients presenting with NVUGIB were retrospectively identified and analyzed. These patients were stratified as follows: (1) > 10 mL of adrenaline injected vs ≤ 10 mL; (2) > 1 hemoclip placed vs ≤ 1 hemoclip; (3) Heater probe used or not; and (4) > 2 treatment modalities used vs ≤ 2. The primary outcomes were rebleeding and the need for repeat endoscopy. The secondary outcomes were the need for surgery, required transfusions, length of hospital stay, death during the same admission period and 30 d mortality. Patients with NVUGIB who required endoscopic therapy were included. Those who did not require endoscopic therapy or were initially treated with surgery or embolization were excluded.

RESULTS

In all, 501 patients with NVUGIB were treated. One hundred sixty-one (32.1%) patients needed endoscopic therapy. The injection of < 10 mL of adrenaline was associated with less rebleeding (P < 0.0001), the need for repeat endoscopy (P = 0.001) and a decreased length of hospital stay (P = 0.026). The use of > 2 treatment modalities were associated with increased rebleeding (P = 0.009) and the need for repeat endoscopy (P = 0.048). The placement of > 1 hemoclip was associated with a decreased length of hospital stay (P = 0.044). The rates of surgery and death were low, and there were no other significant differences between the patient groups.

CONCLUSION

The more restrictive use of adrenaline and number of endoscopic modalities to treat NVUGIB with the more liberal use of hemoclips was associated with better patient outcomes.

Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: New Frontiers

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to blood loss from the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz due to lesions that are non-variceal in origin. The distinction of the bleeding source as non-variceal is important in numerous aspects, but none more so than endoscopic approaches for successful hemostasis. When a patient presents with acute overt blood loss, NVUGIB is a medical emergency, which requires immediate intervention. There have been major strides in pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for successful induction and remission of hemostasis in the last two decades. Despite achieving tangible improvements, the burden of the disease and the consequent mortality remain high. To address endoscopic outcomes better, several new technologies have emerged and have been subsequently incorporated to the armamentarium of hemostatic tools. This study aims to provide a succinct review on novel technologies for endoscopic hemostasis.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2018?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in the UK. Despite advancement in technology the management of AUGIB remains a challenge. The clinical community recognise the need for improvement in the treatment of these patients. AUGIB has a significant impact on resources. Endoscopic therapy is the gold standard treatment. The mortality in AUGIB is rarely related to the presenting bleed but significantly associated with concurrent comorbidities. The cost of blood transfusion in the management of patients with AUGIB is significant and misuse of blood products has been documented nationally. Risk stratification tools such as Glasgow-Blatchford Score, Rockall Score and the AIMS65 score have allowed clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to deliver endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame. Endoscopic therapeutic modalities such as epinephrine injection, heat thermocoagulation and mechanical clips have had a positive impact on patient's management. However, in order to continue to improve patient's outcomes, further developments are needed.

There Is No Excuse for Mortality Due to Lack of Competency and Training of Paediatric Endoscopists in Gastrointestinal Bleeding Therapy in 2018

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children is possibly the last medical emergency which continues to lead to the death of a child due to the lack of competency/clinical judgement of the doctor, as opposed to the disease itself, leading to mortality despite optimum medical intervention. This is unacceptable in any circumstances in 2018. It occurs due to a number of conspiring factors including lack of appreciation of the clinical presentation requiring urgent endoscopic intervention; misapprehension of the urgency of timing required of such an intervention predicated on the severity of the gastrointestinal (GI) bleed; lack of application of a paediatric-specific validated score predicting for such endoscopic intervention; lack of skill in endo-haemostatic intervention techniques by paediatric endoscopists; poor training in such techniques among paediatric endoscopists; paucity of cases with lack of exposure of the paediatric endoscopist regularly to enable skills to be maintained, once acquired; reluctance of adult endoscopists in many centres to support paediatric GI bleeding services. In essence then the paediatric GI community urgently needs to identify centres of excellence to whom these children should be transferred. Transfer is safe in all but the most critical cases once stabilised with transfusion, octreotide/terlipressin and iv proton pump inhibitors. The resources are country-dependent but this is really no excuse. We must not let this parlous state of affairs continue. Solutions are explored in this article and please let this serve as a call to action for all those involved in this continuing debacle in order to save "save-able" lives.

Endotherapy of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We discuss the endoscopic assessment of peptic ulcers and the rationale for treatment. We also review the evidence for the available endoscopic therapies, both individually and in combination, to draw conclusions on the optimum endoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Endoscopic management of acute gastrointestinal bleeding in children: Time for a radical rethink

Currently we are no nearer than 10 or 20years ago providing a safe, adequate, and effective round-the-clock endoscopic services for acute life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding in children. Preventable deaths are occurring still, and it is a tragedy. This is owing to a number of factors which require urgent attention. Skill-mix and the ability of available endoscopists in the UK are woeful. Manpower is spread too thinly and not concentrated in centers of excellence, which is necessary given the relative rarity of the presentation. Adult gastroenterologists are increasingly reticent regarding their help in increasingly litigious times. Recent work on identification of those children likely to require urgent endoscopic intervention has mirrored scoring systems that have been present in adult circles for many years and may allow appropriate and timely intervention. Recent technical developments such as that of Hemospray® may lower the threshold of competency in dealing with this problem endoscopically, thus allowing lives to be saved. Educational courses, mannequin and animal model training are important but so will be appropriate credentialing of individuals for this skill-set. Assessment of competency will become the norm and guidelines on a national level in each country mandatory if we are to move this problem from the "too difficult" to the "achieved". It is an urgent problem and is one of the last emergencies in pediatrics that is conducted poorly. This cannot and should not be allowed to continue unchallenged.

Risk Factors Associated with Rebleeding in Patients with High Risk Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Focusing on the Role of Second Look Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Re-bleeding after initial hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding can be life threatening. Identification of factors associated with re-bleeding is important. The aims of this study were to determine incidence of rebleeding in patients with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding and to evaluate factors associated with rebleeding.

METHODS

Among patients diagnosed as upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage at seven hospitals in Daegu-Gyeongbuk, and one hospital in Gyeongnam, South Korea, from Feb 2011 to Dec 2013, 699 patients diagnosed as high risk peptic ulcer bleeding with Forrest classification above llb were included. The data were obtained in a prospective manner.

RESULTS

Among 699 patients, re-bleeding occurred in 64 (9.2 %) patients. Second look endoscopy was significantly more performed in the non-rebleeding group than the rebleeding group (81.8 vs 62.5 %, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, larger transfusion volume (≥5 units), and non-performance of second look endoscopy were found as risk factors for rebleeding in high risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

CONCLUSION

In our study, rebleeding was observed in 9.2 % of patients with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding. Performance of second look endoscopy seems to lower the risk of rebleeding in high risk peptic ulcer bleeding patients and caution should be paid to patients receiving high volume transfusion and on medication with NSAIDs.

Distinctive aspects of peptic ulcer disease, Dieulafoy's lesion, and Mallory-Weiss syndrome in patients with advanced alcoholic liver disease or cirrhosis

AIM: To systematically review the data on distinctive aspects of peptic ulcer disease (PUD), Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL), and Mallory-Weiss syndrome (MWS) in patients with advanced alcoholic liver disease (aALD), including alcoholic hepatitis or alcoholic cirrhosis.

METHODS: Computerized literature search performed via PubMed using the following medical subject heading terms and keywords: “alcoholic liver disease”, “alcoholic hepatitis”,“ alcoholic cirrhosis”, “cirrhosis”, “liver disease”, “upper gastrointestinal bleeding”, “non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding”, “PUD”, ‘‘DL’’, ‘‘Mallory-Weiss tear”, and “MWS’’.

RESULTS: While the majority of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with aALD is related to portal hypertension, about 30%-40% of acute GI bleeding in patients with aALD is unrelated to portal hypertension. Such bleeding constitutes an important complication of aALD because of its frequency, severity, and associated mortality. Patients with cirrhosis have a markedly increased risk of PUD, which further increases with the progression of cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis or aALD and peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) have worse clinical outcomes than other patients with PUB, including uncontrolled bleeding, rebleeding, and mortality. Alcohol consumption, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and portal hypertension may have a pathogenic role in the development of PUD in patients with aALD. Limited data suggest that Helicobacter pylori does not play a significant role in the pathogenesis of PUD in most cirrhotic patients. The frequency of bleeding from DL appears to be increased in patients with aALD. DL may be associated with an especially high mortality in these patients. MWS is strongly associated with heavy alcohol consumption from binge drinking or chronic alcoholism, and is associated with aALD. Patients with aALD have more severe MWS bleeding and are more likely to rebleed when compared to non-cirrhotics. Pre-endoscopic management of acute GI bleeding in patients with aALD unrelated to portal hypertension is similar to the management of aALD patients with GI bleeding from portal hypertension, because clinical distinction before endoscopy is difficult. Most patients require intensive care unit admission and attention to avoid over-transfusion, to correct electrolyte abnormalities and coagulopathies, and to administer antibiotic prophylaxis. Alcoholics should receive thiamine and be closely monitored for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Prompt endoscopy, after initial resuscitation, is essential to diagnose and appropriately treat these patients. Generally, the same endoscopic hemostatic techniques are used in patients bleeding from PUD, DL, or MWS in patients with aALD as in the general population.

CONCLUSION: Nonvariceal upper GI bleeding in patients with aALD has clinically important differences from that in the general population without aALD, including: more frequent and more severe bleeding from PUD, DL, or MWS.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children

This article provides an overview of the evaluation and management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in children. The common etiologies at different ages are reviewed. Conditions with endoscopic importance for diagnosis or therapy include solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, polyps, vascular lesions, and colonic inflammation and ulceration. Diagnostic modalities for identifying causes of LGIB in children include endoscopy and colonoscopy, cross-sectional and nuclear medicine imaging, video capsule endoscopy, and enteroscopy. Pre-endoscopic preparation and decision-making unique to pediatrics is highlighted. The authors conclude with a summary of current and emerging therapeutic hemostatic techniques that can be used in pediatric patients.

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding - review the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis methods

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a condition that requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate (exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy (within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided vascular access and therapy (with videos)

The continued need to develop minimally invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. EUS has now stepped into the therapeutic arena. EUS provides the unique advantage of both real-time imaging and access to structures within and adjacent to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Hence, EUS-guided therapeutic techniques continue to evolve in several directions enabling a variety of minimally invasive therapies for pancreatic and biliary pathologies. Furthermore, the close proximity of the GI tract to vascular structures in the mediastinum and abdomen permits EUS-guided vascular access and therapy. Studies have demonstrated several EUS-guided vascular interventions by using standard endoscopic accessories and available tools from the interventional radiology armamentarium. This article provides an overview of the literature including clinical and nonclinical studies for the management of nonvariceal and variceal GI bleeding, formation of intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (IPSS), and EUS-guided cardiac access and therapy.

Endoscopic management of tumor bleeding from inoperable gastric cancer

Tumor bleeding is not a rare complication in patients with inoperable gastric cancer. Endoscopy has important roles in the diagnosis and primary treatment of tumor bleeding, similar to its roles in other non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. Although limited studies have been performed, endoscopic therapy has been highly successful in achieving initial hemostasis. One or a combination of endoscopic therapy modalities, such as injection therapy, mechanical therapy, or ablative therapy, can be used for hemostasis in patients with endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage. However, rebleeding after successful hemostasis with endoscopic therapy frequently occurs. Endoscopic therapy may be a treatment option for successfully controlling this rebleeding. Transarterial embolization or palliative surgery should be considered when endoscopic therapy fails. For primary and secondary prevention of tumor bleeding, proton pump inhibitors can be prescribed, although their effectiveness to prevent bleeding remains to be investigated.

Achieving hemostasis and the risks associated with therapy

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a common cause for hospitalization. Endoscopic hemostasis plays a central role in the management of lesions with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis rely on the identification of lesions suitable for endoscopic therapy, selection of the appropriate hemostatic devices, attention to technique, and prompt recognition and management of procedure-related adverse events. In this article, practical applications of hemostatic devices and pitfalls related to endoscopic hemostasis are discussed.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intravascular therapy

The gastrointestinal tract provides a unique "window" to access vascular structures in the mediastinum and abdomen. The advent of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has enabled access to these structures with a standard fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. Sclerosants, cyanoacrylate, and coils can be delivered through the lumen of the FNA needle. EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices has theoretical advantages over conventional endoscopy-guided treatment. Controlled studies are needed to determine the role of EUS-guided treatment for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. There is a growing list of novel indications for EUS-guided vascular therapy that include portal vein angiography and pressure measurements, intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, and micro coil embolization of vascular structures. Additionally, access and therapy of the heart and surrounding structures appears feasible.

Upper gastrointestinal active bleeding ulcers: review of literature on the results of endoscopic techniques and our experience with Hemospray

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding can lead from mild to immediately life-threatening clinical conditions. Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is associated with a mortality of 6-10%. Spurting and oozing bleeding are associated with major risk of failure. Hemospray™ (TC-325), a new hemostatic powder, may be useful in these cases. Aim of this study is to review the efficacy of traditional endoscopic treatment in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers and to investigate the usefulness of Hemospray in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed and articles that evaluated hemostatic efficacy and rebleeding rate with traditional endoscopic techniques related to Forrest classification were reviewed. Patients with Forrest 1a-1b ulcers were treated with Hemospray, either as monotherapy or in association with other endoscopic techniques. Primary outcome was immediate hemostasis, secondary outcomes were recurrent bleeding and adverse events related to Hemospray use.

RESULTS

Analysis of literature showed that mean initial hemostasis success rate in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers was of 92.8%, and mean rebleeding rate was of 13.3%. We enrolled 13 patients treated with Hemospray. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 100% and we reported three cases of rebleeding. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Forrest 1a-1b bleeding ulcer is very difficult to treat. Hemospray appears to be an effective hemostatic therapy for these ulcers. However, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

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.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy of argon plasma coagulation with and without distilled water injection in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

Background. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is useful to treat upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but its hemostatic efficacy has received little attention. Aims. This investigation attempted to determine whether additional endoscopic injection before APC could improve hemostatic efficacy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Methods. From January 2007 to April 2011, adult patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were included. This investigation compared APC plus distilled water injection (combined group) to APC alone for treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Outcomes were assessed based on initial hemostasis, surgery, blood transfusion, hospital stay, rebleeding, and mortality at 30 days posttreatment. Results. Totally 120 selected patients were analyzed. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 59 patients treated with combined therapy and 57 patients treated with APC alone. No significant differences were noted between these groups in recurred bleeding, emergency surgery, 30-day mortality, hospital stay, or transfusion requirements. Comparing the combined end point of mortality plus the failure of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and the need for surgery revealed an advantage for the combined group (P = 0.040). Conclusions. Endoscopic therapy with APC plus distilled water injection was no more effective than APC alone in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers, whereas combined therapy was potentially superior for patients with poor overall outcomes.

Endoscopic haemostasis: an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is among the most urgent situations in daily gastroenterological practise. Endoscopy plays a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of such cases. Endoscopic haemostasis is probably the most important technical challenge that must be mastered by gastroenterologists. It is essential for both the management of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage and the prevention of bleeding during high-risk endoscopic procedures. During the last decade, endoscopic haemostasis techniques and tools have grown in parallel with the number of devices available for endotherapy. Haemostatic powders, over-the-scope clips, haemostatic forceps, and other emerging technologies have changed daily practise and complement the standard available armamentarium (injectable, thermal, and mechanical therapy). Although there is a lack of strong evidence-based information on these procedures because of the difficulty in designing statistically powerful trials on this topic, physicians must be aware of all available devices to be able to choose the best haemostatic tool for the most effective procedure. We herein present an overview of procedures and clinical scenarios to optimise the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in daily practise.

Modern management of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

An acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (AUGIB) often represents a life-threatening event and is recognised universally as a common cause of emergency hospitalisation. Large observational studies have improved our understanding of the disease characteristics and its impact on mortality but despite significant advancement in endoscopic management, mortality remains high, particularly in elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities. Skilled assessment, risk stratification and prompt resuscitation are essential parts of patient care, with endoscopy playing a key role in the definitive management. A successful outcome partly relies on the clinician's familiarity with current guidelines and recommendations, including the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines published in 2012. Validated risk stratification scores, such as the Blatchford and Rockall score, facilitate early discharge of low-risk patients as well as help in identifying those needing early endoscopic intervention. Major advances in therapeutic endoscopy, including more recently, the development of non-toxic proprietary powders (Hemospray and EndoClot), have resulted in the development of effective treatments of bleeding lesions, reduction in rebleeding rates and the need for emergency surgery. The role of proton-pump inhibitor therapy prior to endoscopy and the level of optimum red cell transfusion in the setting of AUGIB remain fields that require further research.

Endoclips vs large or small-volume epinephrine in peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding

AIM: To compare the recurrent bleeding after endoscopic injection of different epinephrine volumes with hemoclips in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2009, 150 patients with gastric or duodenal bleeding ulcer with major stigmata of hemorrhage and nonbleeding visible vessel in an ulcer bed (Forrest IIa) were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive a small-volume epinephrine group (15 to 25 mL injection group; Group 1, n = 50), a large-volume epinephrine group (30 to 40 mL injection group; Group 2, n = 50) and a hemoclip group (Group 3, n = 50). The rate of recurrent bleeding, as the primary outcome, was compared between the groups of patients included in the study. Secondary outcomes compared between the groups were primary hemostasis rate, permanent hemostasis, need for emergency surgery, 30 d mortality, bleeding-related deaths, length of hospital stay and transfusion requirements.

RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all patients. The rate of early recurrent bleeding was 30% (15/50) in the small-volume epinephrine group (Group 1) and 16% (8/50) in the large-volume epinephrine group (Group 2) (P = 0.09). The rate of recurrent bleeding was 4% (2/50) in the hemoclip group (Group 3); the difference was statistically significant with regard to patients treated with either small-volume or large-volume epinephrine solution (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.045, respectively). Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter among patients treated with hemoclips than among patients treated with epinephrine whereas there were no differences in transfusion requirement or even 30 d mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSION: Endoclip is superior to both small and large volume injection of epinephrine in the prevention of recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer.

EUS-guided vascular access and therapy

The gastrointestinal tract provides a unique window to access vascular structures in the mediastinum and abdomen. The advent of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has enabled access to these structures with standard fine-needle aspiration. EUS-guided treatment of varices has been largely reserved as rescue therapy for refractory bleeding but has theoretic advantages over conventional endoscopy-guided treatment. Data are limited and multicenter, prospective controlled trials are needed to show clinical effectiveness and safety in humans. The development of new tools designed for EUS-guided vascular therapy is needed.

Management of patients with ulcer bleeding

This guideline presents recommendations for the step-wise management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Hemodynamic status is first assessed, and resuscitation initiated as needed. Patients are risk-stratified based on features such as hemodynamic status, comorbidities, age, and laboratory tests. Pre-endoscopic erythromycin is considered to increase diagnostic yield at first endoscopy. Pre-endoscopic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may be considered to decrease the need for endoscopic therapy but does not improve clinical outcomes. Upper endoscopy is generally performed within 24h. The endoscopic features of ulcers direct further management. Patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels receive endoscopic therapy (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, sclerosant, clips) and those with an adherent clot may receive endoscopic therapy; these patients then receive intravenous PPI with a bolus followed by continuous infusion. Patients with flat spots or clean-based ulcers do not require endoscopic therapy or intensive PPI therapy. Recurrent bleeding after endoscopic therapy is treated with a second endoscopic treatment; if bleeding persists or recurs, treatment with surgery or interventional radiology is undertaken. Prevention of recurrent bleeding is based on the etiology of the bleeding ulcer. H. pylori is eradicated and after cure is documented anti-ulcer therapy is generally not given. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are stopped; if they must be resumed low-dose COX-2-selective NSAID plus PPI is used. Patients with established cardiovascular disease who require aspirin should start PPI and generally re-institute aspirin soon after bleeding ceases (within 7 days and ideally 1-3 days). Patients with idiopathic ulcers receive long-term anti-ulcer therapy.

Hemodynamic efficacy of the over-the-scope clip in an established porcine cadaveric model for spurting bleeding

BACKGROUND

Clip application has been proven to be effective for endoscopic hemostasis. There are limited bench data on the efficacy of the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) for the treatment of spurting GI hemorrhage. We evaluated the hemodynamic efficacy of the OTSC in an established bleeding model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the hemodynamic efficacy of the OTSC in an established bleeding model.

DESIGN

Prospective experimental trial with historical comparison.

SETTING

We tested the OTSC prospectively in a validated bleeding model by using the compact Erlangen Active Simulator for Interventional Endoscopy equipped with an upper GI organ package. The artificial blood circulation system of the simulator was connected to an arterial pressure transducer. Two investigators with different endoscopic experience (4000 and 10,000 endoscopies performed) participated. Each investigator treated 16 bleeding sites in the simulator with the OTSC by using only suction (n = 8) and a novel retraction device to grasp tissue (n = 8). Systemic pressures were recorded 1 minute before, during, and 1 minute after clip application to objectify the effects of clipping on the vessel diameter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mean and maximum reduction in vessel diameter.

RESULTS

The application of the OTSC on the bleeding vessel led to a significant increase in systemic pressure (P < .001) and decreased vessel diameter (P < .001) independent of the endoscopic experience of the investigator. There was no difference in the decrease in vessel diameter based on the application technique (suction vs suction plus grasping). A historical comparison with our former trials demonstrated that the OTSC decreased the vessel diameter significantly more than other traditional endoclips.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

We could demonstrate the efficacy of the OTSC with increased hemodynamic efficiency compared with other endoscopic clip devices tested previously.

Predictors of rebleeding after initial hemostasis with epinephrine injection in high-risk ulcers

AIM: To identify the predictors of rebleeding after initial hemostasis with epinephrine injection (EI) in patients with high-risk ulcers.

METHODS: Recent studies have revealed that endoscopic thermocoagulation, or clips alone or combined with EI are superior to EI alone to arrest ulcer bleeding. However, the reality is that EI monotherapy is still common in clinical practice. From October 2006 to April 2008, high-risk ulcer patients in whom hemorrhage was stopped after EI monotherapy were studied using clinical, laboratory and endoscopic variables. The patients were divided into 2 groups: sustained hemostasis and rebleeding.

RESULTS: A total of 175 patients (144, sustained hemostasis; 31, rebleeding) were enrolled. Univariate analysis revealed that older age (≥ 60 years), advanced American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) status (category III, IV and V), shock, severe anemia (hemoglobin < 80 g/L), EI dose ≥ 12 mL and severe bleeding signs (SBS) including hematemesis or hematochezia were the factors which predicted rebleeding. However, only older age, severe anemia, high EI dose and SBS were independent predictors. Among 31 rebleeding patients, 10 (32.2%) underwent surgical hemostasis, 15 (48.4%) suffered from delayed hemostasis causing major complications and 13 (41.9%) died of these complications.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic EI monotherapy in patients with high-risk ulcers should be avoided. Initial hemostasis with thermocoagulation, clips or additional hemostasis after EI is mandatory for such patients to ensure better hemostatic status and to prevent subsequent rebleeding, surgery, morbidity and mortality.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.

The prognosis of patients having received optimal therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding might be worse in daily practice than in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Combination of endoscopic haemostatic and high-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors is considered to be the standard care for patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

AIM

This study assessed predictive factors of rebleeding and death in unselected patients presented to our hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with nonmalignant bleeding ulcers and stigmata of recent haemorrhage who received optimal treatment, between 22 August 2003 and 15 October 2007, were studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

Among 140 included patients, 45 (32%) rebled and 30 received another haemostatic endoscopy, which was successful in 20 cases. In multivariate analysis, the only significant predictive factor of rebleeding was duodenal site of the ulcer [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 2.75; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-6.19]. In-hospital death occurred in 27 (19%) patients; with five deaths related to uncontrolled or recurrent bleeding. In multivariate analysis, predictors of in-hospital mortality were rebleeding (adjusted OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.17-9.16), a Rockall score higher than 6 (adjusted OR: 9.12; 95% CI: 2.57-44.29) and bleeding occurring in the intensive care unit (adjusted OR: 15.68; 95% CI: 4.41-55.82).

CONCLUSION

In unselected patients, rebleeding and mortality rates are substantially higher than those found in prospective randomized clinical trials. Intensive care unit stay is an important predictive factor of hospital mortality and should be considered in further therapeutic trials in ulcer bleeding.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for argon plasma coagulation and distilled water injection in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment is recommended for initial hemostasis in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Many endoscopic devices have been demonstrated to be effective in the hemostasis of bleeding ulcers. However, the hemostatic efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) has not been widely investigated.

STUDY

From February 2007 to February 2008, 271 consecutive patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers, characterized by active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels and adherent clots, were admitted to our hospital. Among these patients, 135 nonrandomly underwent either APC therapy or distilled water injection. Pantoprazole infusion was conducted during the fasting period after endoscopy and orally for 8 weeks to encourage ulcer healing. Episodes of rebleeding were retreated with endoscopic combination therapy. Patients who did not benefit from retreatment underwent emergency surgery.

RESULTS

In all,135 patients were enrolled, among whom 6 with gastric malignancy, acute severe illness or multiple bleeding sites were excluded. Finally, hemostatic efficacy in 59 patients treated with APC was prospectively compared with 70 patients treated with distilled water injection. The two treatment groups were similar with respect to all baseline characteristics. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 57 patients treated with APC, and 64 patients with distilled water injection therapy (97% vs. 91%, P=0.29). Bleeding recurred in 6 patients treated with APC, and in 17 patients treated with distilled water injection (11% vs. 27%, P=0.03). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in hospital stay, transfusion requirements, surgery and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy with APC is more effective than distilled water injection for preventing rebleeding in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Efficacy of an intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy with epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with uraemia: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and uraemia are prone to re-bleeding.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of an intravenous proton pump inhibitor in treating peptic ulcer bleeding in patients with uraemia and those without uraemia.

METHODS

High-risk peptic ulcer bleeding patients received endoscopic therapy with epinephrine (adrenaline) injection plus intravenous omeprazole (40 mg bolus followed by 40 mg infusion every 12 h) for 3 days. Re-bleeding, volume of blood transfusion, hospital stay, need for surgery, and mortality were analysed.

RESULTS

The uraemic group had similar 7-day re-bleeding rate (6/42, 14.29% vs. 6/46, 13.04%, P = 0.865) to that of non-uraemic patients, but more re-bleeding episodes beyond 7 days (4/42, 9.52% vs. 0/46, 0%, P = 0.032, OR [95% CI] = 1.105 [1.002-1.219]) and all-cause mortality (4/42 vs. 0/46 P = 0.032, OR [95% CI] = 1.105 [1.002-1.219]). The uraemic group also had more units of blood transfusion after endoscopic therapy (mean +/- s.d. 4.33 +/- 3.35 units vs. 2.15 +/- 1.65 units, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (mean +/- s.d. 8.55 +/- 8.12 days vs. 4.11 +/- 1.60 days, P < 0.001) and complications during hospitalization (9/42 vs. 0/46, P = 0.001, OR [95% CI] = 1.273 [1.087-1.490]).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic therapy with epinephrine injection plus an intravenous proton pump inhibitor can offer protection against early re-bleeding in uraemic patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, but has a limited role beyond 7 days.

Oral or intravenous proton pump inhibitor in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection

AIMS

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of oral vs. intravenous (i.v.) regular-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after endoscopic injection of epinephrine in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, or adherent clots were enrolled after successful endoscopic haemostasis achieved by epinephrine injection. They were randomized to receive either oral rabeprazole (RAB group, 20 mg twice daily for 3 days) or i.v. omeprazole (OME group, 40 mg i.v. infusion every 12 h for 3 days). Subsequently, the enrolled patients receive oral PPI for 2 months (rabeprazole 20 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily). The primary end-point was recurrent bleeding up to 14 days. The hospital stay, blood transfusion, surgery and mortality within 14 days were compared as well.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were enrolled, with 78 patients randomly allocated in each group. The two groups were well matched for factors affecting the clinical outcomes. Primary end-points (recurrent bleeding up to 14 days) were reached in 12 patients (15.4%) in the OME group and 13 patients (16.7%) in the RAB group [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference -12.82, 10.22]. All the rebleeding events occurred within 3 days of enrolment. The two groups were not different in hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate (1.3% of the OME group and 2.6% of the RAB group died, 95% CI of difference -5.6, 3.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rabeprazole and i.v. regular-dose omeprazole are equally effective in preventing rebleeding in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic injection with epinephrine.

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

Current endoscopic and pharmacological therapy of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most significant complication of ulcer disease, remaining the most important reason for upper gastrointestinal bleeding even in the era of Helicobacter eradication. Endoscopic triage and management plays a vital role in the handling of these patients, albeit in close collaboration with radiological and surgical expertise. Injection therapy, preferably with large volume epinephrine remains a core technology. Histoacryl and fibrin glue are more costly and less widely adopted alternatives. Mechanical measures are attractive and clips offer an excellent solution, particularly in soft tissues, and in combination with initial injection. Thermal methods with coagulation and coaptive axial force have similar performance characteristics. Increasingly, the combination of injection therapy with either a mechanical or thermal method appears the best option to achieve permanent haemostasis. PPIs for potent acid inhibition improves the clotting regardless of other treatment modalities. In the setting of rebleeding, patient and ulcer factors determine whether repeat endoscopy should be attempted, but the surgeon should be close at hand in this situation.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided angiotherapy of refractory gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There are well-established methods for treating gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, although some lesions prove refractory to conventional techniques. Little consideration has been directed toward the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the management of refractory bleeding.

AIMS

To discuss patient selection, technique, and clinical outcomes for EUS-guided angiotherapy for severe refractory bleeding after conventional therapies.

METHODS

The EUS database was reviewed to identify all patients who underwent EUS-directed angiotherapy.

RESULTS

Five patients, four with severe bleeding from hemosuccus pancreaticus, Dieulafoy lesion, duodenal ulcer, or gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and one with occult GI bleeding, had an average of three prior episodes (range 2-4) of severe bleeding and had received 18 (range 14-25) units of packed red blood cells (PRBC). All had failed in at least two conventional attempts to control the bleeding. Under EUS guidance, 99% alcohol was injected (4-7 mL) in two patients, one each with a pancreatic pseudoaneurysm and a duodenal Dieulafoy lesion. In three other patients, cyanoacrylate (3-5 mL) was injected into a duodenal ulcer, and in two patients with a GIST. No patient rebled and no complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided angiotherapy appears safe and effective in managing selected patients with clinically severe or occult GI bleeding from lesions potentially refractory to standard endoscopic and/or angiographic techniques. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy and to refine the selection criteria in an effort to improve patient care.

Hemostasis of Dieulafoy's lesions by argon plasma coagulation (with video)

BACKGROUND

A Dieulafoy's lesion is a submucosal artery that may erode the epithelium and lead to severe hemorrhages. The safety and efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) for the hemostasis of these lesions has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy of APC alone in the hemostasis of Dieulafoy's lesions.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of hemostasis by chart review, with long-term follow-up by outpatient visit or phone interview.

SETTING

An academic hospital with 24-hour endoscopic service availability.

PATIENTS

All patients with acute bleeding from a Dieulafoy's lesion treated with APC.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemostasis was attempted with 2.3-mm APC probes, with settings varying from 40 W to 60 W, according to lesion location.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis, recurrent bleeding, and 30-day mortality rates.

RESULTS

Twenty-three Dieulafoy's lesions were treated with APC, which represented 85% of all such lesions observed. Severe comorbidities and abnormal coagulation were present in 39% and 22%, respectively. Dieulafoy's lesions were located in the upper-GI tract in 20 patients (87%). Active bleeding was found in 20 patients (87%), a nonbleeding visible vessel was found in 2 patients (9%), and a minute mucosal defect below an adherent clot was found in 1 (4%). Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients, without complications. An injection of an average volume of 3 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine solution preceded APC in 3 cases for the identification of the bleeding lesion. Recurrent bleeding occurred in a patient after 48 hours; no bleeding-related deaths were observed during a median follow-up of 29 months.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Dieulafoy's lesions can be successfully managed by APC alone.

Large-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine plus normal saline for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Large-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine has been proven to significantly reduce rates of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Injection of normal saline may be equally effective for the similar hemostatic effect of local tamponade. The aim of our study was to compare the therapeutic effects of large-volume (40 mL) endoscopic injections of epinephrine, normal saline and a combination of the two in patients with active bleeding ulcers.

METHOD

A total of 216 patients with actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) were randomly assigned to three groups (1:10,000 epinephrine, normal saline or diluted epinephrine plus normal saline). The hemostatic effects and clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups.

RESULTS

The initial hemostatic rate was significantly lower in the normal saline group (P < 0.05). The volume of injected solution required for the arrest of bleeding was significantly larger in the normal saline group (P < 0.01). Mean duration for arrest of bleeding was significantly longer in the normal saline group (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to the rates of recurrent bleeding, surgical intervention, 30-day mortality, amount of transfusion and duration of hospitalization. Significant elevation of systolic blood pressure (P < 0.05) and persistent high pulse rate after endoscopic injection were observed in the epinephrine group.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with active bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing), we recommend a large-volume (40 mL) combination injection using diluted epinephrine to cease bleeding, followed by injection of normal saline to achieve sustained hemostasis.