Evaluation of endoscopic hemostasis with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer: comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol in a prospective, randomized study

Safety and Efficacy of Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to compare patients with and without sedation during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and to clarify the safety and efficacy of sedation in emergency endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 389 patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB at Ureshino Medical Center from 2016 to 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: sedation group during emergency endoscopy and nonsedation group. Clinical characteristics, patient status on admission, and UGIB etiology were evaluated. Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM), and risk factors for mortality from UGIB were investigated using Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The sedation group was significantly younger, composed of a higher proportion of males, and had chronic liver disease. Blood pressure and hemoglobin level on admission were significantly higher in the sedation group. The main cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer, which was significantly higher in the nonsedation group. PSM created 133 matched pairs. The success rate of endoscopic hemostasis was similar in both groups, and procedure time was significantly shorter in the sedation group than in the nonsedation group (17.6 ± 10.0 versus 20.2 ± 10.2 min, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups. Cox multivariate analyses revealed that red blood cell transfusion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.45, P < 0.02] and rebleeding (HR 3.30, P = 0.03) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality from UGIB.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation reduced the procedure time during emergency endoscopy for UGIB. Sedation during emergency endoscopy for UGIB is acceptable for safe endoscopic procedures.

Risk factors for the failure of endoscopic resection of gastric submucosal tumors: a long-term retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an effective treatment method for gastric submucosal tumors (G-SMTs), but endoscopic resection failure requires emergency surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess potential risk factors for endoscopic resection failure.

METHODS

A total of 1041 patients with G-SMT undergoing endoscopic resection were enrolled. Twenty-five patients in whom endoscopic resection failed, requiring a transition to surgery midway through the operation, were included in the failed group, and 1016 patients who received successful endoscopic resection were included in the successful endoscopic resection group. Baseline and lesion characteristics were recorded, and the differences in tumor characteristics and risk factors for resection failure of G-SMT were analyzed. Sensitivity analysis was performed to detect the stability of the indicator.

RESULTS

Of the 1041cases included, there were 25 cases (2.4%) of failed endoscopic resection. Binary logistic analysis showed that the independent risk factors included tumors originating from deep muscularis propria(OR = 14.42, 95% CI 4.47-46.52), size > 3 cm (OR = 7.75, 95% CI 2.64-22.70), exophytic growth pattern (OR = 4.98, 95% CI 1.62-15.29), endoscopist with less experience (OR = 5.99, 95% CI 1.07-12.19), and irregular borders (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.40-12.19). The stable risk factors were tumors size, tumor origin and growth pattern according to sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumors originating from the deep muscularis propria, tumor size > 3 cm, endoscopists with less experience, an exophytic growth pattern, and irregular boundaries were found to be independent risk factors for endoscopic resection failure. To reduce the risk of endoscopic resection failure, physicians should carefully evaluate G-SMT characteristics preoperative.

Urgent Endoscopy Improves Hemostasis in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Biliary-pancreatic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a lethal complication of biliary-pancreatic surgery (BPS). The role of endoscopic intervention has not been fully defined in such a critical condition. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with acute UGIB after BPS who received interventional endoscopy between January 2007 and August 2020 were included in this study. The clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed to screen for predictive factors significantly associated with successful hemostasis.

RESULTS

Among 37,772 patients who underwent BPS, 26 patients (0.069%) developed acute UGIB. The sites and causes of hemorrhage were as follows: gastroenteric anastomoe (n=17), gastric stump (n=2), jejunal anastomose (n=1), duodenal bulb ulcer (n=2), pancreatojejunal anastomosis hemorrhage (n=1), cholangiojejunal anastomose (n=1), gastroenteric anastomose and gastric stump hemorrhage (n=1), and Dieulafoy lesion (n=1). Successful endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in 19 (73.1%) of the 26 UGIB patients. In the 7 patients who failed endotherapy, 1 patient received a successful radiologic intervention, 6 patients underwent reoperation and achieved hemostasis in 4, and the other 2 patients died after reoperation. Logistic regression analysis showed that presentation-to-endoscopy time (≤12 h) was the only independent predictive factor associated with successful endoscopic hemostasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis is relatively safe and effective in controlling UIGB after BPS. Prompt intervention (≤12 h) could improve the success rate of endoscopic hemostasis.

Safety and Efficacy of the Noncessation Method of Antithrombotic Agents after Emergency Endoscopic Hemostasis in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Multicenter Pilot Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The present study aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of the noncessation method of antithrombotic agents after emergency endoscopic hemostasis in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, pilot study, we performed emergency endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB in patients taking antithrombotic agents and resumed the medications without a cessation period (group A). The clinical characteristics, types of antithrombotic agents, UGIB etiology, treatment outcome, and adverse events were evaluated. We used propensity score matching to compare treatment outcomes and adverse events with our previous cohort (group B) in whom antithrombotic agents were transiently discontinued after emergency endoscopic hemostasis.

RESULTS

Forty-three consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin and direct oral anticoagulants; 11 patients (25.6%) were taking multiple antithrombotics. Peptic ulcers were the main cause of bleeding (95.4%). Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all patients and the incidence of rebleeding within a month was 7.0%. Propensity score matching created 40 matched pairs. Endoscopic hemostasis was performed by soft coagulation significantly more frequently in group A than in group B (97.5% versus 60.0%, P < 0.001). Neither the rebleeding rate within a month nor thromboembolic event rate was different between the two groups. However, the mean duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in group A than in group B (8.6 ± 5.2 d versus 14.4 ± 7.1 d, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Antithrombotic agents possibly can be continued after successful emergency endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Hemostasis for the Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Were Not Influenced by the Timing of Hospital Emergency Visits: A Situation Prevailing in Japan

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to determine differences in the prognosis of patients in Japan who underwent emergency endoscopic hemostasis (i) during regular hours versus off hours and (ii) as outpatients versus hospitalized patients.

METHODS

The present retrospective study included 443 patients who underwent emergency endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 2008 to December 2014. These patients were classified into 2 groups: hospitalized patients and outpatients. The outpatients were further subclassified into those who visited the hospital during regular hours and those who visited during off hours.

RESULTS

The outcomes of outpatients who underwent emergency hemostasis during off hours did not differ from patients treated during regular hours. Multivariate analysis revealed that outcomes of hospitalized patients, including mortality, need for blood transfusion and length of hospitalization, were worse than those of outpatients; it also revealed that patient age, malnutrition rate and prevalence of diabetes and neoplasms were higher among hospitalized patients than those in outpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of patients who underwent emergency endoscopic hemostasis for upper gastrointestinal bleeding during off hours did not differ from those of patients treated during regular hours. Outcomes were worse among hospitalized patients, mainly because of their bad general condition.

Effectiveness of Endoscopic Hemostasis with Soft Coagulation for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding over a 12-Year Period

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In this study, investigations were carried out to ascertain whether soft coagulation hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has ever been performed in a time-dependent manner.

METHODS

Medical records of 502 patients who had undergone emergency endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB from 2003 to 2014 were checked and the modalities were used to achieve hemostasis compared between the first period from 2003 to 2008 (197 patients) and the second period from 2009 to 2014 (305 patients).

RESULTS

Endoscopic hemostasis was successfully achieved in 96.0% of study patients. Peptic ulcers were the main cause of bleeding (89.4%). Endoscopic hemostasis was performed by soft coagulation significantly more frequently during the second (71.1%) than the first period (11.7%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis was mainly achieved by trainees during the second period (76.1%); these trainees comprised a significantly greater proportion of endoscopists than during the first period (56.3%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic-related complications did not differ between the 2 periods. The only risk factor for rebleeding after hemostasis was Helicobacter pylori infection; the use of soft coagulation and the fact that endoscopists were just trainees were not risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that using soft coagulation to achieve endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB is safe and effective, even when it is performed by trainees.

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 hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer represents the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this review is to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, and CINAHL. We selected randomized clinical trials that assessed contemporary endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The outcomes evaluated were: initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality. The possibility of publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots. An additional analysis was made, including only the higher-quality trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 2988 patients were evaluated. Injection therapy alone was inferior to injection therapy with hemoclip and with thermal coagulation when evaluating rebleeding and the need for emergency surgery. Hemoclip was superior to injection therapy in terms of rebleeding; there were no statistically significant differences between hemoclip alone and hemoclip with injection therapy. There was considerable heterogeneity in the comparisons between hemoclip and thermal coagulation. There were no statistically significant differences between thermal coagulation and injection therapy, though their combination was superior, in terms of rebleeding, to thermal coagulation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection therapy should not be used alone. Hemoclip is superior to injection therapy, and combining hemoclip with an injectate does not improve hemostatic efficacy above hemoclip alone. Thermal coagulation has similar efficacy as injection therapy; combining these appears to be superior to thermal coagulation alone. Therefore, we recommend the application of hemoclips or the combined use of injection therapy with thermal coagulation for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

[Comparison on Endoscopic Hemoclip and Hemoclip Combination Therapy in Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients Based on Clinical Practice Data: Is There Difference between Prospective Cohort Study and Randomized Study?]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective and safe method of endoscopic hemostasis. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study on hemoclip and hemoclip combination therapy based on prospective cohort database in terms of hemostatic efficacy not in clinical trial but in real clinical practice.

METHODS

Data on endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) were prospectively collected from February 2011 to December 2013. Among 1,584 patients with NVUGIB, 186 patients treated with hemoclip were enrolled in this study. Subjects were divided into three groups: Group 1 (n = 62), hemoclipping only; group 2 (n = 88), hemoclipping plus epinephrine injection; and group 3 (n = 36), hemocliping and epinephrine injection plus other endoscopic hemostatic modalities. Primary outcomes included rebleeding, other therapeutic management, hospitalization period, fasting period and mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding associated mortality and overall mortality.

RESULTS

Active bleeding and peptic ulcer bleeding were more common in group 3 than in group 1 and in group 2 (p <œ 0.001). However, primary outcomes (rebleeding, other management, morbidity, hospitalization period, fasting period and mortality) and secondary outcomes (bleeding associated mortality and total mortality) were not different among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy of epinephrine injection and other modalities with hemoclips did not show advantage over hemoclipping alone in this prospective cohort study. However, there is a tendency to perform combination therapy in active bleeding which resulted in equivalent hemostatic success rate, and this reflects the role of combination therapy in clinical practice.

The efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization as the first-choice treatment after failure of endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopic treatment resistance factors

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) as the first-choice treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after the failure of endoscopic hemostasis. An additional objective was to clarify endoscopic treatment resistance factors.

METHODS

Between April 2004 and December 2010, 554 patients were admitted to Kasugai Municipal Hospital for necessary endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding gastric ulcer or duodenal ulcer. In the patients for whom endoscopic hemostasis failed, TAE was attempted. If TAE failed, the patients underwent surgery. The backgrounds of the patients in whom endoscopic treatment was successful and in whom it failed were compared.

RESULTS

TAE was attempted in 15 patients (2.7%). In 12 (80.0%) of 15 patients, embolization with coils was successful. In one patient (6.7%), embolization was ineffective. This patient underwent emergent salvage surgery. In two (13.3%) of 15 patients, no extravasation was observed during arteriography. These patients were cured with medication. In two patients, ulcer perforation was observed during endoscopy after rebleeding. These patients underwent surgery. In total, 3 (0.5%) of 554 patients underwent surgery. No recurrent bleeding was observed after TAE. Hemoglobin level <8 g/dL at presentation (P = 0.02), Rockall score ≥7 at presentation (P = 0.002), and Forrest class Ia/Ib at initial endoscopic hemostasis (P < 0.001) were found to be independent significant endoscopic treatment resistance factors.

CONCLUSIONS

TAE is a safe and effective first-choice treatment for patients in whom endoscopic hemostasis has failed.

Do antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms?

BACKGROUND

It is rarely known whether antiplatelets increase the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of antiplatelets on post-ESD bleeding.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 1591 gastric neoplasms (815 adenomas and 776 early gastric cancers) in 1503 patients who had ESD between April 2005 and April 2010.

INTERVENTION

ESD.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Overt hematemesis/hematochezia, a drop of hemoglobin >2 g/dL from baseline, or requirement of endoscopic hemostasis, angiographic embolization, and/or transfusion.

RESULTS

Of 1591 subjects, 274 took antiplatelets, among whom 102 discontinued them for 7 days or more before ESD. Post-ESD bleeding occurred in 94 subjects including 20 from the continuation group, 6 from the withdrawal group, and 68 from the no-antiplatelet group. In univariate analysis, antiplatelets, early gastric cancer (EGC), comorbidity, and specimen diameter were related to post-ESD bleeding. In multivariate analysis, EGC (odds ratio [OR] 1.839; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.168-2.896; P = .009), comorbidity (OR 2.246; 95% CI, 1.280-3.939; P = .005), and specimen diameter (OR 2.315; 95% CI, 1.282-4.180; P = .005) were independent risk factors of post-ESD bleeding, whereas antiplatelet usage was not (OR 1.596; 95% CI, 0.877-2.903; P = .126). In subgroup analysis, continuous antiplatelet usage was not found to be an independent risk factor of post-ESD bleeding in multivariate analysis (OR 2.027; P = .146). Among 102 subjects who discontinued antiplatelets, 1 developed an acute cerebral infarction (1.0%).

LIMITATION

A retrospective, single-center analysis.

CONCLUSION

In ESD for antiplatelet users, continuous administration was not found to have an independent significant association with bleeding.

Evaluation of hemostasis with soft coagulation using endoscopic hemostatic forceps in comparison with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic high-frequency soft coagulation, recently developed in Japan, is available for the management of gastric bleeding in cases of bleeding gastric ulcers and bleeding during endoscopic submucosal dissection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of hemostasis with soft coagulation for bleeding gastric ulcers by comparing it with hemoclips in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

During the period of April 2006 to March 2008, 96 patients that had gastric ulcers with bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were enrolled in this study. All of the 96 patients were randomly divided into two groups: endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group I) or endoscopic hemoclipping (Group II).

RESULTS

A total of 41 (85%) out of 48 patients in Group I and 38 (79%) out of 48 patients in Group II were successfully treated with soft coagulation or clipping alone, respectively. The endoscopic hemostasis rate for the initial modality in combination with another endoscopic procedure performed after the initial method was 98% in both groups. One patient in Group I (2%) and five patients in Group II (10%) experienced recurrent bleeding. The time required to achieve hemostasis was shorter in Group I compared with Group II (9.2 +/- 11.1 vs. 13.6 +/- 9.4 min; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that soft coagulation is as effective as hemoclipping for treating bleeding gastric ulcers. The time required to achieve hemostasis was shorter with the soft coagulation procedure.

Risk factors for complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric tumors: analysis of 478 lesions

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique has facilitated en bloc removal of widely spread lesions from the stomach. This retrospective study aimed to determine factors associated with serious complications of ESD.

METHODS

Between December 2001 and March 2007, we have performed ESD for 478 lesions in 436 patients. We experienced 39 patients with post-operative bleeding and 17 patients with perforation. Risk factors of patients who received ESD in gastric mucosal tumors for complications were evaluated, focusing on resected size, location, scar lesions, operation time, and experience of endoscopists. We evaluated the patients' background characteristics including sex, age, body mass index (kg/m(2)), drug history of anticoagulant, and underlying diseases including cerebrovascular disorder, ischemic heart disease, liver dysfunction, renal dysfunction, hyperuricemia, hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis indicated a risk factor for perforation was long operation time. Multivariate analysis indicated a significant risk factor for post-operative bleeding was size of the resected tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated risk factors for serious complications of ESD. Large resected tumor size was a risk factor for post-operative bleeding, while long operation time was a risk factor for perforation. Information regarding operation risk factors should be useful for planning strategies for ESD.

The use of endoclips in the treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common emergency managed by endoscopists and the endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment. Traditionally, endoscopic treatment included injections of epinephrine and sclerosing solutions or the use of thermocoagulation. In the last decade with the introduction of hemoclips and band ligators, we have witnessed a significant improvement in the clinical outcome of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoclipping is a safe and effective technique that contributes to hemostasis of bleeding lesions of the gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Optimal endoscopic hemostasis remains undetermined. This was a systematic review of contemporary methods of endoscopic hemostasis for patients with bleeding ulcers that exhibited high-risk stigmata.

SETTING

Randomized trials that evaluated injection, thermocoagulation, clips, or combinations of these were evaluated from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (1990-2006).

PATIENTS

A total of 4261 patients were evaluated.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes were rebleeding (primary), surgery, and mortality (secondary). Summary statistics were determined; publication bias and heterogeneity were sought by using funnel plots or by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

Forty-one trials assessed 4261 patients. All endoscopic therapies decreased rebleeding versus pharmacotherapy alone, including sole intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibition (PPI) (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34-0.92]); only one trial assessed high-dose IV PPI. Injection alone was inferior compared with other methods, except for thermal hemostasis (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.40]), with a strong trend of increased rebleeding if 1 injectate is used rather than 2 (OR 1.40 [95% CI, 0.95-2.05]). Injection followed by thermal therapy did not decrease rebleeding compared with clips (OR 0.82 [95% CI, 0.28-2.38]) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.24-2.62]). Subgroup analysis, however, suggested that injection followed by thermal therapy was superior to thermal therapy alone. Clips were superior to thermal therapy (OR 0.24 [95% CI, 0.06-0.95]) but, when followed by injection, were not superior to clips alone (OR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.36-4.76]). Surgery or mortality was not altered in most comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

All endoscopic treatments are superior to pharmacotherapy alone; only 1 study assessed high-dose IV PPI. Optimal endoscopic therapies include thermal therapy or clips, either alone or in combination with other methods. Additional data are needed that compare injection followed by thermal therapy to clips alone or clips combined with another method.

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.

Endoscopic hemostasis with metallic hemoclips for iatrogenic Mallory-Weiss tear caused by endoscopic examination

AIM

Applied endoscopic techniques including mucosal resection, sclerotherapy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have been advanced and iatrogenic complications including Mallory-Weiss tear (MWT) occasionally occur in daily endoscopic procedures. The present study aimed to examine the advantages of clipping for MWT complications that occur during endoscopic examination.

METHODS

Over 10 years, we experienced 47 patients with bleeding caused by MWT. Metallic hemoclips were applied for 38 patients for hemostasis. These patients were categorized into two groups: 18 patients in group A whose bleeding tear occurred during endoscopic examination in an iatrogenic condition, and 20 patients in group B visited the emergency unit due to other etiology of MWT.

RESULTS

The background characteristics, including length of tears, were not different between the two groups. Initial hemostasis was 100% in groups A and B. Rebleeding was 0/18 (0%) in group A and 1/20 (5 %) in group B. Number of patients who received blood transfusion was significantly higher in group B (group A: 0/18, group B: 4/20). Hemoglobin level before hemostasis was 12.5 g/dL in group A which was not different to that in group B, 10.9 g/dL.

CONCLUSION

Application of hemoclips was effective for bleeding MWT during endoscopic procedures, which warranted prophylactic application of hemoclips on MWT during endoscopic examination.

Endoscopic haemostasis

Endoscopic haemostasis should be attempted as the initial approach in most cases of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, although cross-disciplinary collaboration is a prerequisite. For variceal bleeding, band ligation is the method of choice in the elective setting, although injection therapy still has a role in acute bleeding. Histoacryl remains preferable for fundic varices in most parts of the world. For peptic ulcer bleeds, injection therapy should be combined with at least one 'mechanical' modality, thermal treatment or clipping. In rebleeding, a single endoscopic retreatment can be attempted, but alternative approaches must be considered. Acute lower GI bleeding is primarily a diagnostic challenge but, if the focus is found, the regular techniques for haemostasis can usually be applied. If small bowel haemorrhage is suspected after upper and lower endoscopy, capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy offer make it possible to address even small bowel foci.

Bleeding and stenosis caused by reflux esophagitis was not common in emergency endoscopic examinations: a retrospective patient chart review at a single institution in Japan

BACKGROUND

Bleeding and stenosis are serious complications of reflux esophagitis, although few studies have been performed in Japan regarding these complications. This study aimed to indicate the characteristics of reflux esophagitis observed during emergency endoscopic examination in Japan.

METHODS

All subjects who had emergency endoscopic examination performed between 1990 and 2004 at Saga Medical School Hospital were evaluated. Patients with endoscopic reflux esophagitis were evaluated with a retrospective patient chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 subjects underwent emergency endoscopy; 1420 of the endoscopies were because of hematemesis or melena. Endoscopic examination revealed that 19 cases with bleeding were caused by reflux esophagitis (19/1621, 1.2%). The 19 patients with bleeding and the four patients with stenosis (0.2%) had emergency endoscopy performed for complications of reflux esophagitis. The Los Angeles classification of these 23 cases showed that most were severe esophagitis (grade A, 0; B, 2; C, 8; and D, 13). The frequency of comorbidity with diabetes mellitus and collagen disease and the proportion of heavy drinkers were higher in patients who received emergency endoscopy because of reflux esophagitis than in those diagnosed with reflux esophagitis but who received emergency endoscopy because of other diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively small numbers of patients with reflux esophagitis undergo emergency endoscopy in Japan, and most such patients have underlying diseases, including diabetes mellitus and collagen disease. This finding is supported by a previous report that severe esophagitis is not common in Japan.

Endoscopic clipping for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic clipping is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of various bleeding gastrointestinal lesions. Randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have shown comparable efficacy between clipping and conventional contact thermal therapy for definitive hemostasis of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Clipping also seems to be efficacious for selected lower gastrointestinal bleeding lesions, such as diverticular bleeding and postpolypectomy bleeding. Proficiency in clip application and endoscopic identification of lesions that are amenable to clipping are key determinants of a successful outcome.

Endoscopic clipping for acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding (NVUGIB) is common, with a high rate of recurrent bleeding and substantial mortality rate. Endoscopic clipping has the theoretical advantage of minimizing tissue injury and is increasingly used.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate any potential benefits of clipping over other endoscopic techniques for NVUGIB.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared clipping with other endoscopic hemostatic methods to treat NVUGIB were included. Summary effect size was estimated by odds ratio (OR) with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs met inclusion criteria. For peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), the hemoclip (n = 351 patients) was compared with the heat probe alone, thermal therapy plus injection, and injection alone in 2, 2, and 5 studies, respectively (n = 348 patients). The rate of the initial hemostasis was nonsignificantly increased in the control group compared with the hemoclip group (92% vs 96%, OR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.19-1.75]). The rebleeding rate was nonsignificantly decreased with hemoclips compared with controls (8.5% vs 15.5%, OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.30-1.05]). Emergency surgery and the mortality rate were not significantly different between the hemoclip and controls. Subgroup analysis conducted in studies that compared hemoclips with injection alone show similar results. Two studies and one study reported outcomes of interest for Dieulafoy's lesions and Mallory-Weiss syndrome, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs that compared clipping alone with other endoscopic hemostatic techniques for NVUGIB were limited. Current evidence suggests that the hemoclip is not superior to other endoscopic modalities in terms of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, emergency surgery, and the mortality rate for treatment of PUB.

Endoscopic clipping

Endoscopic clips are relatively new devices that have been shown to be effective for the control of acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Various different models are available and offer simplicity of use with relatively few complications. Recently, endoscopic clips have been used for a variety of non-hemorrhagic conditions. In this article we review the literature and present current thinking about the indications, efficacy and safety of these devices.

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.

Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no definite recommendation on the use of dual endoscopic therapy in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether the use of two endoscopic hemostatic procedures improved patient outcomes compared with monotherapy.

METHODS

A search for randomized trials comparing dual therapy (i.e., epinephrine injection plus other injection or thermal or mechanical method) versus monotherapy (injection, thermal, or mechanical alone) was performed between 1990 and 2006. Heterogeneity between studies was tested with chi(2) and explained by metaregression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2,472 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, dual endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding (OR [odds ratio] 0.59 [0.44-0.80], P= 0.0001) and the risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89], P= 0.03) and showed a trend toward a reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.68 [0.46-1.02], P= 0.06). Subcategory analysis showed that dual therapy was significantly superior to injection therapy alone for all the outcomes considered, but failed to demonstrate that any combination of treatments is better than either mechanical therapy alone (OR 1.04 [0.45-2.45] for rebleeding, 0.49 [0.50-4.87] for surgery, and 1.28 [0.34-4.86] for death) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.67 [0.40-1.20] for rebleeding, 0.89 [0.45-1.76] for surgery, and 0.51 [0.24-1.10] for death).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual endoscopic therapy proved significantly superior to epinephrine injection alone, but had no advantage over thermal or mechanical monotherapy in improving the outcome of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

Clinical outcomes of EMR for gastric tumors: historical pilot evaluation between endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional mucosal resection

BACKGROUND

EMR is currently a standard treatment for mucosal gastric tumors. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed for en bloc resection.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the clinical outcomes of ESD compared with conventional EMR.

DESIGN

Not applicable.

SETTING

A historical control study was performed between EMR and ESD.

PATIENTS

EMR of 245 gastric tumors was performed in 229 patients. Lesions were divided into two groups. Conventional EMR was performed in group A from February 1999 to June 2001, and ESD was performed in group B from July 2001 to March 2004. Group B was divided into subgroups: subgroup B-1 underwent ESD from July 2001 to March 2003 and subgroup B-2 from April 2003 to March 2004.

INTERVENTIONS

All lesions were resected with conventional EMR or with ESD.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

En bloc resection rate, rate in completeness of resection, required time, remnant ratio, and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

With regard to lesions >10 mm in size, the en bloc resection rate and the rate in completeness of resection of group B was significantly higher than that of group A (p < 0.01). Although the required time was longer in group B than A (p < 0.01), it was shorter in subgroup B-2 compared with B-1 (p < 0.05) with lesions < or =10 mm in size. The remnant ratio and perforation rate were not different between groups.

LIMITATIONS

Not applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

The en bloc resection rate was better with ESD than with conventional EMR. The required time was longer in ESD, but this disadvantage might be improved with experience.

Successful endoscopic hemostasis for gastric arterial bleeding due to invasion of malignant lymphoma

A 75-year-old male with malignant lymphoma (ML) accompanied with gastric lesion was treated with combination chemotherapy. The patient produced tarry stool on the 4^th d, and emergency gastroscopy showed arterial bleeding from the lesion. Hemostasis was achieved by injecting pure ethanol and using hemostatic clips. There is only one previous report on endoscopic hemostasis being effective for bleeding due to lymphoma. Since gastric bleeding causes significant mortality, endoscopic hemostasis should be considered as first-line treatment for ML patients who were treated with chemotherapy.

Prevention of the rehaemorrhage of bleeding peptic ulcers: effects of Helicobacter pylori eradication and acid suppression

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the consequences of Helicobacter pylori eradication and acid suppression on rehaemorrhage caused by bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

A total of 320 patients who had been diagnosed with bleeding peptic ulcers between January 1994 and December 2001 were included in the study. Cases between 1994 and 1997, prior to the introduction of eradication therapy, were assigned to group A, whereas those between 1998 and 2001, after the eradication therapy, were assigned to group B.

RESULTS

Of the 320 cases, 162 were designated as group A (113 gastric ulcers and 49 duodenal ulcers) and 158 as group B (116 and 42, respectively). Rehaemorrhage occurred in 24 cases (15%) and five cases (3%) in groups A and B, respectively, presenting a significantly decreased rate of rehaemorrhage in group B. Among those without eradication, rehaemorrhage was observed in 15 of 128 cases (12%) that received treatment with histamine(2)-receptor antagonist (famotidine), and 14 of 142 cases (10%) treated with proton-pump inhibitors, with no significant difference between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Helicobacter pylori eradication lowered the rates of rehaemorrhage. Treatment with histamine(2)-receptor antagonist or proton-pump inhibitors did not produce a difference in the rate of rehaemorrhage.

Effect of famotidine on recurrent bleeding after successful endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer

AIM

We investigated the effect of acid suppression therapy on recurrent bleeding after successful endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A total of 400 patients with bleeding peptic ulcer received either intravenous infusion of famotidine (40 mg/day) (n = 207, 163 males, 44 females, mean age 61.5 years) or drip infusion of omeprazole (40 mg/day; n = 193, 134 males, 59 females, mean age 59.8 years) after successful endoscopic treatment. The fasting duration, hospital stay, volume of transfused blood, incidence of rebleeding and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of rebleeding did not differ significantly between the famotidine group (9%) and the omeprazole group (8%). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the omeprazole group (18.4 days) than in the famotidine group (21.5 days, P = 0.009). However, there was no statistically significant difference in fasting duration, volume of transfused blood or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that intravenous infusion of famotidine after successful endoscopic treatment is equivalent to drip infusion of omeprazole for prevention of recurrent bleeding.