Continuous infusion of pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of ulcer rebleeding: a U.S. multicenter randomized, double-blind study

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.

[Guidelines for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding]

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to bleeding that develops in the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz. NVUGIB is an important cause for visiting the hospital and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although European and Asian-Pacific guidelines have been published, there has been no previous guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea. Korea is a country with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and patients have easy accessibility to receive endoscopy. Therefore, we believe that guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB are mandatory. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology reviewed recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines on NVUGIB in Korea.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Guidelines for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to bleeding that develops in the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz. NVUGIB requires hospitalization and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although European and Asian-Pacific guidelines have been published, there have been no previous guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea. Korea has a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infections, and patients have easy accessibility to endoscopy. Therefore, we believe that guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea are essential. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology reviewed the recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines on NVUGIB in Korea.

The Use of Higher Dose Steroids Increases the Risk of Rebleeding After Endoscopic Hemostasis for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that several factors such as hemodynamic instability at admission are risk factors for rebleeding of peptic ulcer bleeding. However, whether steroid use increases the risk of rebleeding remains elusive.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the risk factors for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding at our institution between 2005 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. We evaluated factors, including comorbid conditions, in-hospital onset, and steroid use, associated with rebleeding by logistic regression analysis. In addition, we investigated the association between the dose of steroids and rebleeding.

RESULTS

The rebleeding rate after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding was 14.6%. In the multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for rebleeding were steroid use (odds ratio 4.56, p = 0.015), multiple ulcers (4.43, p = 0.005), number of comorbidities ≥ 3 3.18, p = 0.026), hemodynamic instability (3.06, p = 0.039), and number of comorbidities ≥ 3 (2.93, p = 0.047). Furthermore, the use of higher dose steroids (≥ 20 mg per day in prednisolone; 10.55, p = 0.002), but not lower dose (< 20 mg per day in prednisolone), was an independent risk factor for rebleeding in the multivariate analysis. The relationship between steroid use and rebleeding was observed in a dose-dependent manner (p for trend = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This study first revealed that using higher dose steroids was an independent risk factor for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding, with a dose-response relation.

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.

Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding proximal to the ligament of Treitz in the absence of oesophageal, gastric or duodenal varices. The clinical presentation varies according to the intensity of bleeding from occult bleeding to melena or haematemesis and haemorrhagic shock. Causes of UGIB are peptic ulcers, Mallory-Weiss lesions, erosive gastritis, reflux oesophagitis, Dieulafoy lesions or angiodysplasia. After admission to the hospital a structured approach to the patient with acute UGIB that includes haemodynamic resuscitation and stabilization as well as pre-endoscopic risk stratification has to be done. Endoscopy offers not only the localisation of the bleeding site but also a variety of therapeutic measures like injection therapy, thermocoagulation or endoclips. Endoscopic therapy is facilitated by acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. These drugs are highly effective but the best route of application (oral vs intravenous) and the adequate dosage are still subjects of discussion. Patients with ulcer disease are tested for Helicobacter pylori and eradication therapy should be given if it is present. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have to be discontinued if possible. If discontinuation is not possible, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in combination with PPI have the lowest bleeding risk but the incidence of cardiovascular events is increased.

Proton pump inhibitors therapy vs H2 receptor antagonists therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding after endoscopy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the therapeutic effects of proton pump inhibitors vs H₂ receptor antagonists for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients after successful endoscopy.

METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed for randomized controlled trials until July 2014 for this study. The risk of bias was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and all of the studies had acceptable quality. The main outcomes included mortality, re-bleeding, received surgery rate, blood transfusion units and hospital stay time. These outcomes were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan 5.3.3 software and Stata 12.0 software were used for data analyses.

RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials involving 1283 patients were included in this review; 678 subjects were in the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) group and the remaining 605 subjects were in the H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RA) group. The meta-analysis results revealed that after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H₂RA, PPI therapy had statistically significantly decreased the recurrent bleeding rate (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.25-0.51) and receiving surgery rate (OR = 0.29; 95%CI: 0.09-0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (OR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.17-1.23). However, significant heterogeneity was present in both the numbers of patients requiring blood transfusion after treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), -0.70 unit; 95%CI: -1.64 - 0.25] and the time that patients remained hospitalized [WMD, -0.77 d; 95%CI: -1.87 - 0.34]. The Begg’s test (P = 0.283) and Egger’s test (P = 0.339) demonstrated that there was no publication bias in our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION: In patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy, compared with H₂RA, PPI may be a more effective therapy.

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

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.

Pantoprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and prevention of rebleeding

Adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to endoscopic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding, with current consensus guidelines recommending high-dose intravenous (IV) PPI therapy (IV bolus followed by continuous therapy). However, whether or not high-dose PPI therapy is more effective than low-dose PPI therapy is still debated. Furthermore, maintaining pH ≥ 4 appears to prevent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy has been increasingly recommended in intensive care units (ICUs). This review evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, and in controlling gastric pH and protecting against upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in high-risk ICU patients. The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatment of upper GI bleeding, the prevention of rebleeding, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

Endoscopic treatment of ulcer bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding secondary to ulcer disease occurs commonly and results in significant patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis of the source of the UGI hemorrhage and can reliably identify those high-risk subgroups that may benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. Large-channel therapeutic endoscopes are recommended. Endoscopists should be very experienced in management of patients with UGI hemorrhage, including the use of various hemostatic devices. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coaptive coagulation (with multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy with endoscopic hemostasis of major stigmata. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic therapy and should be triaged to less intensive care and be considered for early discharge. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce cost of medical care.

An implantable wireless biosensor for the immediate detection of upper GI bleeding: a new fluorescein-based tool for diagnosis and surveillance (with video)

BACKGROUND

Early recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic intervention for acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) can approach 20% and leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Little has changed over the past several decades regarding immediate posthemorrhage surveillance, and there has likewise been no significant improvement in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test an endoscopically implantable wireless biosensor for real-time detection of fluorescein-labeled blood in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models of UGIB.

SETTING

Animal laboratory.

DESIGN

Benchtop and acute animal studies.

SUBJECTS

Five pigs.

INTERVENTIONS

UGIB models were surgically created in living pigs. Biosensors were endoscopically deployed in the stomach using standard endoscopic clips. The ability to detect acute UGIB and estimated blood loss leading to biosensor activation were recorded. Feasibility of wireless data transmission out of the body to an external computer and cell phone was assessed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical feasibility and immediate complications.

RESULTS

A porcine UGIB model was successfully created. Biosensors were able to detect all acute bleeding events and wirelessly transmit out of the body, and successfully sent an emergency text message to the intended cell phone in all cases. Average estimated blood loss leading to biosensor activation was 30 mL (10-75 mL).

LIMITATIONS

Animal study; small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopically implantable wireless biosensor successfully detected acute hemorrhage in a porcine UGIB model and sent an emergency cell-phone alert in real time.

Esomeprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of acute bleeding in the upper GI tract. The incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding has slowly decreased and endoscopic treatment options have improved; nevertheless, it remains a very common condition with a 7-15% mortality. Acidic environments have a negative effect on hemostasis. Therefore, acid inhibitors have been applied in the adjuvant treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, both in preventing rebleeding and in treating the underlying cause. This requires profound acid suppressive therapy aiming for a rapid onset of effect and a persistent intragastric pH above 6. This can only be achieved by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Esomeprazole is the S-isomer of omeprazole, and the first PPI to consist of only the active isomer. A number of studies have compared esomeprazole with other PPIs, demonstrating a faster and more persistent increase in intragastric pH with the use of esomeprazole than with other agents. Continuous high-dose intravenous treatment with esomeprazole decreases rebleeding, surgery, transfusion rates and hospital days in peptic ulcer bleeding.

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.

[Classification and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

The upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains the most frequent emergency in gastroenterology. Due to the different therapeutic approach a distinction between the variceal and the non-variceal bleeding has been established. A risk assessment for the individual patient is crucial for timing of the endoscopic procedure as well as for the estimation of prognosis. This review gives an overview on modern therapeutic techniques for both, variceal and non-variceal bleeding highlighting on success rates but also on potential complications of the different therapeutic interventions.

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.

Methodology for randomized trials of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: recommendations from an international consensus conference

The aim of this document is to provide a methodological framework for the design, performance, analysis, interpretation, and communication of randomized trials that assess management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Literature searches were performed and an iterative process with electronic and face-to-face meetings was used to achieve consensus among panel members as part of an International Consensus Conference on Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Recommendations of the panel include the following. Randomized trials must explicitly state their primary hypothesis. A nonmanipulable randomization schedule with concealed allocation should be used. Stratification (e.g., for age and stigmata of hemorrhage) may be considered, especially in smaller studies. The patient and personnel providing care or recording information should be blinded. Inclusion criteria should be overt bleeding with endoscopy performed within 24 h or less. One type of lesion (e.g., ulcer) should be studied with stigmata to be included predefined. Use of placebo/no therapy vs. active controls depends on current standard practice. Standardizing study and key non-study interventions should ensure uniform provision of interventions. Criteria for repeat endoscopy and subsequent interventions should be predefined. The primary end point should be further bleeding (persistent and recurrent bleeding) with primary assessment at 7 days; mortality, with primary assessment at 30 days, would be appropriate in very large trials. Sample size calculation based on assumptions regarding primary end point results with regard to study intervention and control must be provided, and all patients enrolled must be accounted for. In general, the primary population for analysis is all patients randomized, although a per-protocol population may be used if this is the more conservative approach (e.g., equivalence study).

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

[Guidelines of treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer disease]

Peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding is the main cause of non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Negative outcomes include re-bleeding and death, and many of the deaths are associated with decompensation of coexisting medical conditions precipitated by acute bleeding event. Accurate analysis of risk for clinical features can help physician to decide treatment modality. Endoscopy can detect bleeding stigmata and perform therapeutic hemostasis. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared with placebo or H2RA reduces mortality following PU bleeding among patients with high-risk endoscopic findings, and reduces re-bleeding rates and surgical intervention. PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) at index endoscopy but does not reduce mortality, re-bleeding or the need for surgery. The strategy of giving oral PPI before and after endoscopy, with endoscopic hemostasis for those with major SRH, is likely to be the most cost-effective. The treatment of H. pylori infection was found to be more effective than anti-secretory therapy in preventing recurrent bleeding from PU. H. pylori eradication alone and eradication followed by misoprostol (with switch to PPI, if misoprostol is not tolerated) are the two most cost-effective strategies to prevent ulcer bleeding among H. pylori-infected NSAID users, although the data cannot exclude PPIs also being cost-effective treatment. This review focuses specifically on the current treatment of patients with acute bleeding from a peptic ulcer.

A clinical guide to using intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in reflux and peptic ulcers

Intravenous (IV) proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are potent gastric acid suppressing agents, and their use is popular in clinical practice. Both IV and oral PPIs have similarly short half-lives, and their effects on acid secretion are similar, thus their dosing and dosage intervals appear to be interchangeable. The possible exception is when sustained high pHs are required to promote clot stabilization in bleeding peptic ulcers. Continuous infusion appears to be the only form of administration that reliably achieves these high target pHs. IV PPI is indicated in the treatment of high-risk peptic ulcers, complicated gastroesophageal reflux, stress-induced ulcer prophylaxis, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, and whenever it is impossible or impractical to give oral therapy. The widespread use of PPIs has been controversial. IV PPIs have been linked to the development of nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care setting and to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. This review discusses the use of IV PPI in different clinical scenarios, its controversies, and issues of appropriate use.

Hemoclipping of chronic canine ulcers: a randomized, prospective study of initial deployment success, clip retention rates, and ulcer healing

BACKGROUND

Several different hemoclips are marketed for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal upper GI (UGI) bleeding. No previous reports have compared success rates of clip deployment onto bases of chronic gastric ulcers (GUs), clip retention rates, or their influence on ulcer healing.

OBJECTIVES

For the treatment of chronic GUs, to compare 3 different hemoclips with multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC) and control.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled study.

SUBJECTS

Seven adult dogs with prehepatic portal hypertension had GUs created by rubber band ligation. Animals received oral proton pump inhibitors daily and underwent weekly endoscopies to quantitate clip retention and ulcer healing.

INTERVENTIONS

One week after banding, 10 chronic ulcers were randomized in pairs to control (no endoscopic treatment), MPEC, or different hemoclips (QuickClip2 [QC], TriClip [TC], or Resolution Clip [RC]).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Times and success of hemoclip deployment, clip retention rates, and ulcer healing rates on weekly endoscopies.

RESULTS

Success rates of clip deployment were 100% for the RC, 93.1% for the TC, and 83.3% for the QC. Clip retention rates were significantly higher with the RC than the QC or TC at 1 to 3 weeks. Retained clips did not delay GU healing compared with MPEC or control.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemoclipping time was similar with all 3 clips; the RC was retained significantly longer than the QC or TC, hemoclips did not delay ulcer healing compared with control or MPEC, and all 3 hemoclips were safe and no complications such as bleeding and weight loss were noted.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors: an evidence-based review of their use in gastrointestinal disorders

Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcers, are very common and their prevalence is expected to rise as they are seen predominantly in the elderly. The general basis of treatment with antisecretory agents is to maintain gastric pH >4 for a substantial proportion of the 24-hour cycle. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to have the best benefit-risk ratio and have been used widely. Intravenous administration of a PPI provides gastric acid suppression faster than oral administration does. Whereas some indications for the use of intravenous PPIs are widely known, mostly for acute management of peptic ulcer bleeding, there are some controversies surrounding their use in other conditions such as stress-induced mucosal damage. There is still a need to define the best schedule for intravenous PPI administration (i.e. bolus infusion or constant infusion), the optimal time to switch from intravenous to oral administration and the choice of which agent is best. In most of the clinical scenarios where PPIs are recommended, they can be administered via either oral or enteral routes, unless the patient is nil by mouth. Since there are no head-to-head comparisons of the different intravenous PPIs available worldwide (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole), the rule might be to choose the drug with the best proven efficacy in each specific condition. Indeed, the key difference between them, the ability to reach and to maintain a threshold gastric pH, might not necessarily translate into clinically significant differences.

Intravenous pantoprazole as an adjuvant therapy following successful endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors are efficacious in preventing rebleeding when administered immediately after endoscopic treatments. However, there are limited clinical outcome data on the use of intravenous pantoprazole.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous pantoprazole after successful endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and several Chinese databases up to July 2008 were searched. RCTs that compared the relative effectiveness of intravenous pantoprazole with placebo, H2 receptor antagonist or other agents for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who were pretreated with successful endoscopic therapies were retrieved.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising a total of 821 participants were included in the final meta-analysis. Overall, there were significant differences in ulcer rebleeding (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.53; pooled rates were 4.7% for pantoprazole and 15.0% for control), surgical intervention (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83; pooled rates were 1.4% in pantoprazole group versus 6.5% in control) and total length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.53; 95% CI -1.91 to -1.16), but not on mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.81; pooled mortality rates were 1.9% for pantoprazole versus 2.8% for control) and blood transfusion requirements (weighted mean difference -0.53; 95% CI for random effects -1.04 to -0.02) when compared with control treatments. A series of subgroup analyses supported the results from the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous administration of pantoprazole after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding reduces rates of ulcer rebleeding, surgical intervention and overall duration of hospital stay, but not mortality and blood transfusion requirements compared with placebo, H2 receptor antagonist or somatostatin.

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.

Recent advances in peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a common cause of hospital admission, morbidity and mortality. Data published since 2006 illustrate that assessment, endoscopic and pharmacological management, and follow-up strategies can be refined to improve the overall prognosis of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Effect of oral lansoprazole on intragastric pH after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) induce a high intragastric pH and may thereby improve haemostasis in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a similar therapeutic intragastric pH level could be reached when the PPI was administered orally.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH was measured in patients treated endoscopically for bleeding peptic ulcer (Forrest class I or II). The patients received lansoprazole capsules (90 mg) after successful endoscopic treatment, followed by 30 mg every third hour for 72 h. The primary end-point was the percentage of the 0 to 24-h registration period with an intragastric pH of 6 or higher. Additionally, the total number of patients obtaining an intragastric pH above 6 for 80% or more of the 0 to 24-h period after start of treatment was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 14 patients included in the study (4 F, mean age 74 years, range 50-84 years), 10 patients had duodenal ulcer and 4 had gastric ulcer; median lowest Hgb: 8.9 mg/ml (range 5.8-12.4), blood transfusions: 2.7 SAG units (range 0-7). In the 0 to 24-h period, the median time duration of pH above 6 was 55% (range 6-99). One out of 14 patients (7%) reached a pH above 6 in at least 80% of this time period.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in intragastric pH of therapeutic importance was reached with this oral medication regimen. However, there were large intra-individual differences. Treatment with oral lansoprazole may be a therapeutic alternative to intravenous administration of PPI.

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.

Management of Αcute Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Drugs, Endoscopic Hemostasis, or Both?

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most frequent and emergent conditions in everyday clinical practice and a challenge for doctors. Peptic ulcer is responsible for more than half of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is the most frequent cause of serious non-variceal bleeding. Despite progress in diagnosis and management in these patients, the recurrence of bleeding remains an important problem. Several drugs and endoscopic techniques, alone or in combination, have been evaluated in many studies and there is presently enough experience in terms of their efficacy. Endoscopic hemostasis is more effective than any other therapeutic intervention in the treatment of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In patients with high risk of rebleeding spots, the combination of endoscopic hemostasis with high dose proton pump inhibitors is the most effective strategy to reduce bleeding recurrences and the need for surgery.

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.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.

High- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicentre, randomized study

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients with actively bleeding ulcers and those with nonbleeding visible vessel or adherent clot were treated with epinephrine injection and/or thermal coagulation, and randomized to receive intravenous PPIs according to an intensive regimen (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg/h as continuous infusion for 72 h) or a standard regimen (40 mg bolus daily followed by saline infusion for 72 h). After the infusion, all patients were given 20 mg PPI twice daily orally. The primary end point was the in-hospital rebleeding rate, as ascertained at the repeat endoscopy.

RESULTS

Bleeding recurred in 28 of 238 patients (11.8%) receiving the intensive regimen, and in 19 of 236 (8.1%) patients receiving the standard regimen (P= 0.18). Most rebleeding episodes occurred during the initial 72-h infusion: 18 (7.6%) and 19 events (8.1%) in the intensive and standard groups, respectively (P= 0.32). Mean units of blood transfused were 1.7 +/- 2.1 in the intensive and 1.5 +/- 2.1 in the standard regimen group (P= 0.34). The duration of hospital stay was <5 days for 88 (37.0%) and 111 patients (47.0%) in the intensive and standard groups (P= 0.03). There were fewer surgical interventions in the standard versus intensive regimen (1 vs 3). Five patients in each treatment group died.

CONCLUSIONS

Following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers, standard-dose PPIs infusion was as effective as a high-dose regimen in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00374101).

Systematic review of the predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostatic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

An increased knowledge regarding the predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers should improve clinical management and outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the strongest and most consistent predictors of rebleeding to assist in the development of tools to stratify and appropriately manage patients after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for prospective studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers were performed. Relevant studies were identified, and data were abstracted in a duplicate and independent fashion. The primary outcomes sought were significant independent predictors of rebleeding by multivariable analyses in > or =2 studies.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy was 16.4%. The independent pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were hemodynamic instability (significant in 5 of 5 studies; summary odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99-3.51) and comorbid illness (significant in 2 of 7 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range). The independent endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were active bleeding at endoscopy (significant in 5 of 8 studies; summary OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.30-2.55), large ulcer size (significant in 4 of 5 studies; summary OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21-2.80), posterior duodenal ulcer (significant in 2 of 3 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range), and lesser gastric curvature ulcer (significant in 2 of 2 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range).

CONCLUSIONS

The independent predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic therapy, particularly those that are the strongest and most consistent in the literature, may be used to select patients who are most likely to benefit from aggressive post-hemostasis care, including intensive care unit (ICU) observation and second-look endoscopy. Prospective studies designed to formally assess the relative utilities of these factors in predicting rebleeding and dictating management are needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of high-dose omeprazole infusion before endoscopy for patients with upper-GI bleeding

BACKGROUND

The use of intravenous (i.v.) proton pump inhibitors (PPI) before an endoscopy in upper-GI bleeding (UGIB) was shown to reduce the need of endoscopic therapy and shorten hospital stay.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether preemptive use of a PPI in UGIB is a cost-effective strategy.

DESIGN

A decision analysis model that represents treatment pathways for patients with UGIB was constructed and structuralized by 30-day outcomes. Direct costs of medical treatment, diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, endoscopic re-treatment, surgery, and hospitalization were analyzed.

SETTING

Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong.

PATIENTS

A total of 631 patients were recruited. Sixty patients (19.1%) in the PPI group and 90 patients (28.4%) in the placebo group required endoscopic hemostasis at index endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary measurements were cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to avert endoscopic therapy between PPI and placebo treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying the cost of endoscopy, hospitalization, the incidence rate of endoscopic therapy, and the proportion of bleeding peptic ulcers.

RESULTS

The overall direct cost per patient was U.S. dollars (USD) $2813 for PPI treatment and USD $2948 for the placebo. A PPI reduced endoscopic therapy by 7.4% and resulted in a lower cost-effectiveness ratio per endoscopic therapy averted (USD $3561) than the placebo (USD $4117). The ICER value was USD -$1843, which indicated that preemptive PPI treatment is more effective and less costly for UGIB. When the proportions of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were greater than 8.3%, the preemptive PPI treatment remained cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive use of IV PPI before an endoscopy is a cost-effective strategy in the management of UGIB.

A pilot study of efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous infusion of pantoprazole in the treatment of severe erosive esophagitis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Reflux esophagitis is a common disease. Erosive reflux esophagitis is a more advanced stage of reflux esophagitis. Although death from reflux disease is uncommon, significant morbidity and mortality from complications, such as esophageal ulcer, stricture, and cancer, are not uncommon. Proton pump inhibitors are the popular medication for reflux esophagitis. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous infusion of pantoprazole in the treatment of severe erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

From February 2005 to November 2006, all patients with grade 4 erosive reflux esophagitis were screened for the study. Eligible patients were randomized into two groups. Each patient in the study group received intravenous pantoprazole 80 mg loading dose over 5 min, followed by 8 mg/h intravenous infusion for 72 h, then 40 mg orally once a day for 4 days. Each patient in the control group received 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously once a day for 72 h, then orally once a day for 4 days. A second endoscopic gastrointestinal examination (EGD) was performed on treatment days 6-8 (+/-1 day if day 7 was on a weekend) to document any healing of esophagitis in either the study or the control group.

RESULTS

In the study group, severe erosive esophagitis healed completely in three patients and significantly in the other three by the time of the second endoscopy. In the control group, severe erosive esophagitis healed partially in five patients, and no improvement was seen at all in one patient by the time of second endoscopy. The difference in the intervention between those two groups was statistically different (P = 0.015). There were no significant complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe erosive esophagitis can be completely healed in a few days if pantoprazole is given intravenously and continuously for 72 h. It is safe to give pantoprazole intravenously and continuously for treatment of severe erosive esophagitis.

Initial management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: from initial evaluation up to gastrointestinal endoscopy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common, potentially life-threatening medical emergency responsible for more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. The initial assessment focuses on bleeding activity, bleeding severity, hemodynamic compromise from the bleeding, and differentiating upper from lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The initial supportive therapy includes fluid resuscitation to reverse the hypovolemia, blood transfusions to replete the lost blood, respiratory support as necessary, and proton pump inhibitor therapy to stabilize mucosal blood clots and promote hemostasis. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the best test to determine the bleeding site and cause.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

A limited number of trials have investigated the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors for peptic ulcer bleeding, and some study design issues have been identified.

AIM

To present the design of a large trial evaluating the effects of intravenous esomeprazole on clinical outcomes in high-risk patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

The Peptic Ulcer Bleed study is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing either esomeprazole 80 mg intravenous bolus infusion for 30 min followed by esomeprazole 8 mg/h intravenously for 71.5 h, or placebo infusion for 72 h, after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and associated high-risk stigmata. All patients will receive once daily oral esomeprazole 40 mg for 27 days after intravenous therapy. The primary end point is the rate of clinically significant re-bleeding during the first 72 h after endoscopy. Secondary end points include: rate of re-bleeding during the first 7 and 30 days after treatment; length of hospitalization; mortality; blood transfusion; endoscopic re-treatment and surgery.

RESULTS

Expected 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

The carefully designed protocol and quality control measures represent a pragmatic approach to contemporary challenges in peptic ulcer bleeding management and, it is hoped, qualify the Peptic Ulcer Bleed study as a new standard for future interventional studies.

Famotidine Versus Pantoprazole for Preventing Bleeding in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract of Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

Background Mechanical ventilation increases risk for bleeding in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract. Proton pump inhibitors, although they are more potent and longer acting inhibitors of gastric acid production than are histamine2 antagonists, also are generally more expensive. Data comparing the 2 types of agents for preventing gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients are limited.

Objectives To compare the effectiveness of famotidine (a histamine2 antagonist) and pantoprazole (a proton pump inhibitor) in preventing stress ulcers in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

Methods Data were collected from the Project Impact database. All patients who received mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours from November 2002 to June 2006 and were treated with either drug were included. Patients receiving other drugs or with known bleeding in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract, thrombocytopenia, or coagulopathy were excluded.

Results A total of 522 patients who received famotidine and 95 who received pantoprazole were included. Bleeding in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract was more common in patients receiving pantoprazole than in patients receiving famotidine (0.38% vs 3.2%, P= .03). Although scores on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II were higher in patients who received pantoprazole (P= .01), other outcome measures did not differ significantly between groups. Bleeding in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract was more frequent among dialysis patients receiving pantoprazole than among those receiving famotidine.

Conclusions Famotidine and pantoprazole are similarly effective for preventing bleeding in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

Pantoprazole: a proton pump inhibitor with oral and intravenous formulations

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are a significant part of therapy for most acid-related diseases including gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease and acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Pantoprazole is one of several available proton pump inhibitor agents and provides dose-dependent control of gastric acid secretion. Pantoprazole has indications in gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease, along with indications as co-therapy in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection and in the control of the acid secretion associated with the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, as well as in NSAID ulcer prevention. Pantoprazole is available in both oral and intravenous formulations. It is effective across all age groups, although only indicated in adults (and adolescents in Europe). It has been approved for use in over 100 countries and has been used for over 13 years. Pantoprazole has an excellent safety profile and a low potential for drug-drug interactions. While still widely prescribed, pantoprazole and the other branded proton pump inhibitors are under considerable market pressure from the less expensive but similarly effective generic and over-the-counter formulations of omeprazole.

Stability and compatibility of histamine H2-receptor antagonists in parenteral nutrition mixtures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the stability and compatibility of histamine H2-receptor antagonists in parenteral nutrition admixtures in order to provide well tolerated and effective therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many stability investigations were carried out before 2005, but no critical appraisal of published data has been undertaken. H2-receptor antagonists are stable in most parenteral nutrition admixtures for 2-48 h, with long-term stability up to 4 weeks claimed for a few combinations. Some earlier data are questionable in the light of more recent analytical technology and pharmaceutical knowledge regarding stability assessment. As stability is dependent upon the source of constituents, we have listed all products tested and their respective manufacturers. A general recommendation is made not to store H2-receptor antagonists in parenteral nutrition for more than 24 h at refrigerated temperature before use.

SUMMARY

Administration of H2-receptor antagonists in parenteral nutrition admixtures has several clinical and economical advantages, but, in order for these benefits to be well tolerated and efficacious, the stability and compatibility of the drugs, as well as the parenteral nutrition components after mixing, have to be ascertained. Factors that influence stability are assessed, the need for more controlled study protocols is evaluated and recommendations are made for safe storage and administration.

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.

To establish the efficacy of PPI therapy for ulcer bleeding in the United States, do we need more patients or more PPI [corrected]

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is widely used in the management of patients with ulcer bleeding. However, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted outside of the United States. Jensen and colleagues have conducted the first United States-based RCT to compare a PPI with an H(2)-receptor antagonist following appropriate endoscopic hemostatic treatment for patients with ulcer bleeding. Unfortunately, the trial had to be discontinued prematurely because of problems with enrolment. There was a statistically nonsignificant difference in rebleeding rates between the two treatment arms. A type II statistical error probably explains this apparent lack of efficacy. However, U.S. patients may also require higher doses of PPI for adequate control of intragastric acidity.