Intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of peptic ulcer re-bleeding: rationale/design of Peptic Ulcer Bleed study

Dose-dependent protective effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG against stress-induced ulcer

BACKGROUND

Stress-related diseases are on the rise and stress is one of the common factors that lead to ulcer. Stress-induced mucosal bleeding is a serious complication observed in many critically ill patients. Due to the harmful side effects of proton pump inhibitors, natural and active alternative treatment methods for peptic ulcer treatment that are safe in terms of side effects are an urgent need for human health. We aimed to investigate the dose-dependent protective effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) against stress ulcer induced by cold restraint stress in rats. This study was performed in a total of 42 rats, in control group (C), stress group (S), pantoprazole (20 mg kg-1 day-1) group (P), LGG (3 × 108 cfu mL-1 day-1) + stress group (M1), LGG (15 × 108  mL-1 day-1) + stress group (M5) and LGG (30 × 108  mL-1 day-1) + stress group (M10) (each n = 7). Ulceration areas (mm2) were determined quantitatively with ImageJ software. Glucocorticoid, catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) levels were determined by ELISA and malondialdehyde levels were determined by spectrophotometric measurement. Histopathological examinations were performed in gastric tissue.

RESULTS

Therapeutic dose of LGG increased CAT, SOD and GPx levels; prevented excessive activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; reduced ulceration and bleeding in the gastric mucosal layer; and provided stabilization of mast cells.

CONCLUSIONS

We can suggest that LGG may be beneficial for reducing the negative effects of stress on the body, for protecting against ulcer disease and for reducing or preventing the risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal bleeding in patients staying in intensive care units. © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

The role of endoscopic doppler probe in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Forrest classification for ulceration has significant intra and inter-observer variability. The endoscopic doppler probe (DOP-US) identifies arterial blood flow at the base to direct therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of the DOP-US in bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to December 2019, evaluating the use of DOP-US in peptic ulcer bleeding. Primary outcomes were the comparison of rebleeding rate, mortality, and surgical intervention in patients with DOP-US signal-guided therapy versus standard visual evaluation guided therapy.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included after a thorough search was concluded using the key words. The use of DOP-US probe decreases rebleeding, mortality, and surgical intervention as compared to Forrest Classification. The risk of rebleeding is significantly higher if the signal persists despite endoscopic therapy (48.5% (95% CI 29.5-67.9%)).

CONCLUSION

The first systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the DOP-US is a beneficial tool in the management of bleeding ulcers and adds valuable information to visual evaluation.

Study on the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole in the management of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding

This retrospective study investigated the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole (IVEO) in the prevention of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NUGIB).This study enrolled 130 patients with NUGIB and all of them underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis, of which 65 cases received routine management and IVEO (Group A) and the other 65 cases received routine management alone (Group B). The primary outcome (recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour, 7-day, and 30-day), and secondary outcomes ((all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, blood transfused, hospital stay (day), and incidence of adverse events)) were compared between 2 groups.Patients in the group A showed lower recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour(P < .05), 7-day (P < .05), and 30-day (P < .05), than that of patients in the group B. However, no significant differences were identified in all-cause mortality(P = .26), bleeding-related mortality (P = .57), blood transfused (P = .33), and hospital stay (P = .74) between 2 groups. In addition, both groups had similar safety profile.This study found that routine management and IVEO was superior to the routine management alone for preventing the recurrent bleeding rate after successful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with NUGIB.

Reassessment of Rebleeding Risk of Forrest IB (Oozing) Peptic Ulcer Bleeding in a Large International Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to assess risks of early rebleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis for Forrest oozing (FIB) peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs) compared with other stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH).

METHODS

These were post hoc multivariable analyses of a large, international, double-blind study (NCT00251979) of patients randomized to high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole (PPI) or placebo for 72 h. Rebleeding rates of patients with PUB SRH treated with either PPI or placebo after successful endoscopic hemostasis were also compared.

RESULTS

For patients treated with placebo for 72 h after successful endoscopic hemostasis, rebleed rates by SRH were spurting arterial bleeding (FIA) 22.5%, adherent clot (FIIB) 17.6%, non-bleeding visible vessel (FIIA) 11.3%, and oozing bleeding (FIB) 4.9%. Compared with FIB patients, FIA, FIIB, and FIIA had significantly greater risks of rebleeding with odds ratios (95% CI's) from 2.61 (1.05, 6.52) for FIIA to 6.66 (2.19, 20.26) for FIA. After hemostasis, PUB rebleeding rates for FIB patients at 72 h were similar with esomeprazole (5.4%) and placebo (4.9%), whereas rebleed rates for all other major SRH (FIA, FIIA, FIIB) were lower for PPI than placebo, but the treatment by SRH interaction test was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful endoscopic hemostasis, FIB patients had very low PUB rebleeding rates irrespective of PPI or placebo treatment. This implies that after successful endoscopic hemostasis the prognostic classification of FIB ulcers as a high-risk SRH and the recommendation to treat these with high-dose IV PPI's should be re-evaluated.

[Organization and results of surgical care for ulcerative gastroduodenal bleeding in the hospitals of Central Federal District]

AIM

To present treatment of 52 149 patients with ulcerative gastroduodenal bleeding (UGDB) who were treated in different regions of Central Federal District (CFD) for the period 2011-2014. It is noted that UGDB incidence per 100 thousands is increased proportionally from 32.9 to 77.8 according to population less than 20 and over 100 thousands, respectively. In hospitals of small and medium settlements the number of UGDB patients without surgery reaches 81.6 and 81.1%, the number of operated patients - 18.4 and 18.9% respectively. In hospitals of large settlements this ratio is 90.1 and 90.6%, the number of operated patients - 9.9 and 9.4%, respectively. In areas of Central Federal District the mortality rate in patients without surgery is 3.9-8.2%, in operated patients - 17.4-36.9%.

RESULTS

Structured analysis of the organization of surgical care in Central Federal District revealed the relationship between outcomes and efficient use of endoscopic diagnostics and haemostasis. In municipal hospitals of Central District endoscopic technologies are insufficiently used for final elimination of ulcerative bleeding.

Doppler endoscopic probe as a guide to risk stratification and definitive hemostasis of peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For more than 4 decades endoscopists have relied on ulcer stigmata for risk stratification and as a guide to hemostasis. None used arterial blood flow underneath stigmata to predict outcomes. For patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), we used a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) for (1) detection of blood flow underlying stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), (2) quantitating rates of residual arterial blood flow under SRH after visually directed standard endoscopic treatment, and (3) comparing risks of rebleeding and actual 30-day rebleed rates for spurting arterial bleeding (Forrest [F] IA) and oozing bleeding (F IB).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 163 consecutive patients with severe PUB and different SRH.

RESULTS

All blood flow detected by the DEP was arterial. Detection rates were 87.4% in major SRH-spurting arterial bleeding (F IA), non-bleeding visible vessel (F IIA), clot (F IIB)-and were significantly lower at 42.3% (P < .0001) for an intermediate group of oozing bleeding (F IB) or flat spot (F IIC). For spurting bleeding (F IA) versus oozing (F IB), baseline DEP arterial flow was 100% versus 46.7%, residual blood flow detected after endoscopic hemostasis was 35.7% versus 0%, and 30-day rebleed rates were 28.6% versus 0% (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) For major SRH versus oozing or spot, the arterial blood flow detection rate by the DEP was significantly higher, indicating a higher rebleed risk. (2) Before and after endoscopic treatment, spurting (F IA) PUB had significantly higher rates of blood flow detection than oozing (F IB) PUB and a significantly higher 30-day rebleed rate. (3) The DEP is recommended as a new endoscopic guide with SRH to improve risk stratification and potentially definitive hemostasis for PUB.

Prediction scores or gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling for triaging patients that present with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Several prediction scores for triaging patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding have been developed, yet these scores have never been compared to the current gold standard, which is the clinical evaluation by a gastroenterologist. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of prediction scores to gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling in patients with a suspected upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

WE PROSPECTIVELY EVALUATED GUT FEELING OF SENIOR GASTROENTEROLOGISTS AND ASKED THEM TO ESTIMATE: (1) the risk that a clinical intervention is needed; (2) the risk of rebleeding; and (3) the risk of mortality in patients presenting with suspected upper GI bleeding, subdivided into low, medium, or high risk. The predictive value of the gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling was compared to the Blatchford and Rockall scores for various outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 974 patients, of which 667 patients (68.8%) underwent a clinical intervention. During the 30-day follow up, 140 patients (14.4%) developed recurrent bleeding and 44 patients (4.5%) died. Gut Feeling was independently associated with all studied outcomes, except for the predicted mortality after endoscopy. Predictive power, based on the AUC of the Blatchford and Rockall prediction scores, was higher than the Gut Feeling of the gastroenterologists. However, combining both the Blatchford and Rockall scores and the Gut Feeling yielded the highest predictive power for the need of an intervention (AUC 0.88), rebleeding (AUC 0.73), and mortality (AUC 0.71 predicted before and 0.77 predicted after endoscopy, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Gut Feeling is an independent predictor for the need of a clinical intervention, rebleeding, and mortality in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding; however, the Blatchford and Rockall scores are stronger predictors for these outcomes. Combining Gut Feeling with the Blatchford and Rockall scores resulted in the most optimal prediction.

Effect of proton pump inhibitors on the outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding: comparison of event rates in routine clinical practice and a clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical outcomes in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after endoscopic hemostasis in routine clinical care, and to compare these outcomes to those seen in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of i.v. esomeprazole.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage, who were treated with i.v. esomeprazole or pantoprazole ≥120 mg/day following therapeutic endoscopy, were identified from 12 hospitals in Spain (n = 539). Outcomes assessed included further bleeding, all-cause mortality and surgery. The results were compared to those of the RCT.

RESULTS

Overall, 9.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7-11.5) of patients experienced further bleeding within 72 h following initial endoscopy, 14.3% (95% CI: 11.3-17.2) of patients had further bleeding within 30 days and 3.3% (95% CI: 1.8-4.9) of patients died within 30 days. In the RCT, the rate of rebleeding within 72 h was significantly lower in the esomeprazole arm (5.9%) than in the placebo arm (10.3%; p = 0.026). The further bleeding rate in patients treated with esomeprazole in routine clinical practice (7.8%; 95% CI: 4.6-11.1) was between these two values. Similar results were seen with the other outcomes studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients treated with i.v. esomeprazole in routine clinical practice who experienced further bleeding following endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding was between the rates observed in the esomeprazole group and the placebo group in the RCT.

Admission time is associated with outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) during the weekend have a worse outcome compared with weekdays, with an increased risk of recurrent bleeding and mortality.

AIM

To investigate the association between timing of admission and adverse outcome after UGIB.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of UGIB to the emergency room of eight participating hospitals. Using standard descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses, differences in 30-day mortality, rebleeding rate, and need for angiography and surgical intervention were assessed for week- and weekend admissions and time of admission. Moreover, patient- and procedure-related factors were identified that could influence outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 571 patients were included with suspected UGIB. Patient admitted during the weekend had a higher mortality rate than patients admitted during the week [9% vs.3%; adjusted odds ratio 2.68 (95%CI 1.07-6.72)]. Weekend admissions were not associated with other adverse outcomes. Patients admitted during the weekend presented more often with bleeding and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure. No differences were found in procedure-related factors. Time of admission was not associated with an adverse outcome, although patients admitted during the evening had a significantly longer time to endoscopy (15, 22 and 16 h for day, evening and night admissions respectively, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although quality of care did not appear to differ between week/weekend admissions, patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted during the weekend were at higher risk of an adverse outcome. This might be due to the fact that these patients have more severe haemorrhage.

Weak up-regulation of serum response factor in gastric ulcers in patients with co-morbidities is associated with increased risk of recurrent bleeding

Background

Serum response factor (SRF) is crucial for gastric ulcer healing process. The study determined if gastric ulcer tissues up-regulate SRF and if such up-regulation correlated with co-morbidities and the risk of recurrent bleeding.

Methods

Ulcer and non-ulcer tissues were obtained from 142 patients with active gastric ulcers for SRF expression assessed by immunohistochemistry. Based on the degree of SRF expression between these two tissue types, SRF up-regulation was classified as strong, intermediate, and weak patterns. The patients were followed-up to determine if SRF up-regulation correlated to recurrent bleeding.

Results

Gastric ulcer tissues had higher SRF expression than non-ulcer tissues (p < 0.05). Patients with strong SRF up-regulation had lower rates of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) on the ulcer base than the others (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that co-morbidities and weak SRF up-regulation were two independent factors of recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding (p < 0.05). Combining both factors, there was an 8.29-fold (95% CI, 1.31~52.62; p = 0.03) higher risk of recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding.

Conclusions

SRF expression is higher in gastric ulcer tissues than in non-ulcer tissues. Weak SRF up-regulation, combined with the presence of co-morbidities, increase the risk of the recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding.

Safety and tolerability of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding

INTRODUCTION

Efficacy of a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion of esomeprazole, followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) was established in the PUB study (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00251979). Mortality rates and detailed safety and tolerability results from this study are reported here.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized study in patients ≥18 years with overt signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, following endoscopic diagnosis of a single gastric or duodenal ulcer (≥5 mm) with stigmata indicating current/ recent bleeding (Forrest class Ia, Ib, IIa, or IIb). Postendoscopic hemostasis, patients received intravenous esomeprazole (80 mg/30 minutes, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or placebo. Postinfusion, all patients received open-label oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 27 days. Mortality rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test; other safety variables were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 767 patients were randomized; 764 comprised the safety analysis set (375 patients received esomeprazole, 389 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar across the two treatment groups. Three deaths from the esomeprazole treatment group and eight from the placebo group occurred during the trial (0.8% versus 2.1%; P=0.22). From these 11 all-cause deaths, one (esomeprazole group; rebleeding from duodenal ulcer) occurred during the 72-hour intravenous treatment phase. Adverse event (AE) frequency was similar for the two groups over the intravenous treatment phase (esomeprazole, 39.2%; placebo, 41.9%), with gastrointestinal disorders being most commonly reported (12.3% and 19.8%, respectively). Serious AEs were mostly related to bleeding events. Infusion-site reactions (mild, transient) were reported in 4.3% of esomeprazole-treated patients versus 0.5% of placebo patients. These did not lead to treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole, given as a continuous high-dose intravenous infusion followed by an oral regimen after successful endoscopic therapy for PUB, was well tolerated, with no apparent safety concerns from either the high-dose intravenous treatment or oral phases.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to September 2005, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model. Searches were re-run in February 2006 and October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of hospitalised participants with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding, undergoing active treatment with a proton pump inhibitor PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment prior to endoscopy. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days and included mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH; active bleeding, non bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion requirements and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 2223 participants were included. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for dichotomous outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Unweighted pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). Unweighted pooled rebleeding rates were 13.9% and 16.6% respectively (OR 0.81; 95%CI 0.61 to 1.09). Pooled rates for surgery were 9.9% and 10.2% respectively (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35). PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). However, this result was not robust to sensitivity analysis. PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 8.6% and 11.7% respectively (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). For continuous outcomes (length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements), quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding might reduce the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy and significantly reduces requirement for endoscopic therapy during index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.

The role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Pre-endoscopic administration of PPIs in patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding is still of controversial efficacy. It downstages the severity of the endoscopic signs of recent bleeding and may reduce the requirement for endoscopic hemostatic therapy at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence of an effect on mortality, rebleeding, or surgical intervention rates. In contrast, the efficacy of PPIs in endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer bleeding is supported by high-quality evidence from numerous RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. PPIs compared with H2RAs or placebo consistently reduce rebleeding rates regardless of dose, route of administration, application or not of endoscopic hemostatic treatment, and geographic location. Surgical intervention rates and the need for further endoscopic hemostatic treatment are also reduced by PPI treatment, although the results are not as robust as those for rebleeding. There is no evidence of an overall effect of PPI treatment on all-cause mortality. However, all-cause mortality is reduced among patients with high-risk endoscopic signs and among trials that had been conducted in Asia. The optimal dose and route of PPI administration has yet to be determined.

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

BACKGROUND

Controlled pantoprazole data in peptic ulcer bleeding are few.

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study was to determine appropriate endoscopic treatment of patients with bleeding ulcers by synthesizing results of randomized controlled trials. We performed dual independent bibliographic database searches to identify randomized trials of thermal therapy, injection therapy, or clips for bleeding ulcers with active bleeding, visible vessels, or clots, focusing on results from studies without second-look endoscopy and re-treatment. The primary end point was further (persistent plus recurrent) bleeding. Compared with epinephrine, further bleeding was reduced significantly by other monotherapies (relative risk [RR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.93]; number-needed-to-treat [NNT], 9 [95% CI, 5-53]), and epinephrine followed by another modality (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23-0.50]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 5-7]); epinephrine was not significantly less effective in studies with second-look and re-treatment. Compared with no endoscopic therapy, further bleeding was reduced by thermal contact (heater probe, bipolar electrocoagulation) (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.36-0.54]; NNT, 4 [95% CI, 3-5]) and sclerosant therapy (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-13]). Clips were more effective than epinephrine (RR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09-0.55]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-9]), but not different than other therapies, although the latter studies were heterogeneous, showing better and worse results for clips. Endoscopic therapy was effective for active bleeding (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43]; NNT, 2 [95% CI, 2-2]) and a nonbleeding visible vessel (RR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.40-0.59]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-6]), but not for a clot. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy significantly improved outcome compared with placebo/no therapy (RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28-0.59]; NNT, 12 [95% CI, 10-18]), but not compared with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists. Thermal devices, sclerosants, clips, and thrombin/fibrin glue appear to be effective endoscopic hemostatic therapies. Epinephrine should not be used alone. Endoscopic therapy should be performed for ulcers with active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessels, but efficacy is uncertain for clots. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion intravenous proton pump inhibitor should be used after endoscopic therapy.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) initiated prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was undertaken according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model using CENTRAL, (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings up to September 2005. The literature search was re-run in February 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised patients with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Types of interventions: Active treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo or an histamine-(2) receptor antagonist (H(2)RA). Types of outcome measures: Assessed at 30 days: mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers assessed the eligibility criteria of each study and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs were included for review. No further RCTS were identified in an updated literature search. Four trials comprising a total of 1512 patients in total reported data for all randomised patients. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). Pooled rebleeding rates were 13.9% and 16.6% respectively (OR 0.81; 95%CI 0.61 to 1.09). Pooled rates for surgery were 9.9% and 10.2% respectively (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35). PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy; pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). For the continuous outcomes, namely length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements, quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.