Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers

Efficacy of hemostatic powder monotherapy versus conventional endoscopic treatment for nonvariceal GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hemostatic powder (HP) is a novel hemostasis modality for nonvariceal GI bleeding. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of HP monotherapy versus conventional endoscopic treatment (CET) for nonvariceal GI bleeding.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to October 16, 2023. The primary outcomes were the initial hemostatic rate and the 30-day recurrent bleeding rate. After the meta-analysis, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also conducted to decrease the risk of random errors and validate the result.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 8 studies, incorporating 653 patients in total. Given significant heterogeneity, all analyses were segregated into malignancy-related and nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding lesions. For the former, HP monotherapy significantly improved the initial hemostasis rate and 30-day recurrent bleeding rate compared with CET (relative risk [RR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.75; P < .001; RR, .32; 95% CI, .12-.86; P = .02, respectively), and TSA supported the results. For nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding, HP monotherapy and CET have similar initial hemostasis and 30-day recurrent bleeding rates (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .98-1.19; P = .11; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, .46-2.90; P = .76, respectively), but the TSA failed to confirm the results.

CONCLUSIONS

HP monotherapy surpassed CET in terms of the initial hemostasis rate and 30-day recurrent bleeding rate for patients with malignancy-related GI bleeding. However, their relative efficacy for nonmalignancy-related GI bleeding remains unresolved.

The Effectiveness of Prophylactic Epinephrine Compared to No Prophylaxis for Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Endoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer prevention has seen significant advancements with colonoscopic polypectomy, a critical technique in clinical practice. However, postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), particularly in the resection of large pedunculated polyps, remains a major complication. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of prophylactic epinephrine injections in preventing PPB, addressing inconsistencies in the literature regarding its effectiveness. Employing a comprehensive search strategy, we rigorously selected studies for inclusion, focusing on those comparing prophylactic epinephrine with no intervention. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, ensuring a robust and reliable analysis. Our findings, based on an analysis of four studies involving 1,062 patients, indicate a significant reduction in early PPB with epinephrine use, with a marked decrease in bleeding incidence compared to the no-prophylaxis group. However, the impact on delayed bleeding was less conclusive, suggesting the need for further research in this area. Our study thus highlights the effectiveness of epinephrine as a preventive tool in colonoscopic polypectomy while underscoring the complexity of bleeding risks and the necessity for ongoing investigation in optimizing patient outcomes.

A microexplosive shockwave-based drug delivery microsystem for treating hard-to-reach areas in the human body

Implantable drug-delivery microsystems have the capacity to locally meet therapeutic requirements by maximizing local drug efficacy and minimizing potential side effects. The internal organs of the human body including the esophagus, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract, with anfractuos contours, all manifest with endoluminal lesions often located in a curved or zigzag area. The ability of localized drug delivery for these organs using existing therapeutic modalities is limited. Spraying a drug onto these areas and using the adhesion and water absorption properties of the drug powder to attach to lesion areas can provide effective treatment. This study aimed to report the development and application of microsystems based on microshockwave delivery of drugs. The devices comprised a warhead-like shell with a powder placed at the head of the device and a flexible rod that could be inserted at the tail. These devices had the capacity to deposit drugs on mucous membranes in curved or zigzag areas of organs in the body. The explosive impact characteristics of the device during drug delivery were analyzed by numerical simulation. In the experiment of drug delivery in pig intestines, we described the biosafety and drug delivery capacity of the system. We anticipate that such microsystems could be applied to a range of endoluminal diseases in curved or zigzag regions of the human body while maximizing the on-target effects of drugs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Kirigami-inspired stents for sustained local delivery of therapeutics

Implantable drug depots have the capacity to locally meet therapeutic requirements by maximizing local drug efficacy and minimizing potential systemic side effects. Tubular organs including the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract and vasculature all manifest with endoluminal disease. The anatomic distribution of localized drug delivery for these organs using existing therapeutic modalities is limited. Application of local depots in a circumferential and extended longitudinal fashion could transform our capacity to offer effective treatment across a range of conditions. Here we report the development and application of a kirigami-based stent platform to achieve this. The stents comprise a stretchable snake-skin-inspired kirigami shell integrated with a fluidically driven linear soft actuator. They have the capacity to deposit drug depots circumferentially and longitudinally in the tubular mucosa of the gastrointestinal tract across millimetre to multi-centimetre length scales, as well as in the vasculature and large airways. We characterize the mechanics of kirigami stents for injection, and their capacity to engage tissue in a controlled manner and deposit degradable microparticles loaded with therapeutics by evaluating these systems ex vivo and in vivo in swine. We anticipate such systems could be applied for a range of endoluminal diseases by simplifying dosing regimens while maximizing drug on-target effects through the sustained release of therapeutics and minimizing systemic side effects.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Trend of Tranexamic Use in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Bleeding ulcer is a common condition, especially among the elderly population. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been successfully used for many bleeding conditions. Its use in patients with bleeding ulcer is inclusive yet. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the prescription of TXA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed as a review of medical records at the Surgery Department, University Hospital in Linkoping. Patients with complete esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ulcer disease were included and divided on the basis of treatment with TXA or not. Differences between the groups were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The main part of the prescription of TXA, 65%, occurred during 2010 and 2011, and 35% between 2012 and 2013 (P < 0.05). In the group treated with TXA, 84% needed blood transfusion, compared to 64% in the control group (P = 0.039). Of the patients treated with TXA, 18% were re-bleeding compared to 14% of the controls (P = 0.594). Median value for days at hospital was 5 in the tranexamic group and 3 in the control group (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The prescription of TXA has declined between 2010 and 2013. TXA was more often prescribed to patients with more severe gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding ulcer disease. Further investigation is needed to conclude the significance of tranexamic acid in patients with GI bleeding ulcer disease.

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with End Stage Renal Disease: Causes, Characteristics and Factors Associated with Need for Endoscopic Therapeutic Intervention

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is increased among the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. The aim of the current study was to describe the causes and characteristics of UGIB in ESRD patients at our center and to assess the need for endoscopic therapeutic intervention (ETI) using Rockall (RS) and Glasgow Blatchford scores (GBS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with ESRD and UGIB with age ≥14 years were included. Frequencies and percentages were computed for categorical variables. Chi square test or Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 59 subjects had a mean age of 47.25 ± 15 years.The most common endoscopic findings seen were erosions in 33 (55.9%) patients, followed by ulcers in 18 (30.3%) patients. ETI was required in 33 (55.9%) patients, which included adrenaline injection in 19 (32.3%), hemoclip in 9 (15.2%) and argon plasma coagulation in 5 (8.4%) patients. Factors associated with the need of ETI were identified as: a combined presentation of hematemesis and melena (P=0.033), ulcer (P=0.002) and associated chronic liver disease (P=0.015). Six (10.1%) patients died. Death was more common if ETI was not performed (P=0.018).

CONCLUSION

ETI was more commonly required in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with UGIB, who had presence of combined hematemesis and melena, ulcers and associated chronic liver disease. A Glasgow Blatchford score of >14 was helpful in assessing the need for ETI in these patients.

Efficacy of submucosal epinephrine injection for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Background

Bleeding is the most common major complication following colonoscopic polypectomy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether submucosal epinephrine injections could prevent the occurrence of postpolypectomy bleeding.

Method

The dataset was defined by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for appropriate randomized controlled studies published before April 2015. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the preventative effect of submucosal epinephrine injection for overall, early, and delayed postpolypectomy bleeding.

Results

The final analysis examined the findings of six studies, with data from 1388 patients. The results demonstrated that prophylactic treatment with epinephrine injection significantly reduced the occurrence of overall (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.66; p = 0.0006) and early bleeding (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.69; p = 0.002). However, for delayed bleeding complications, epinephrine injections were not found to be any more effective than treatment with saline injection or no injection (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.11, 1.81; p = 0.26). Moreover, for patients with polyps larger than 20 mm, mechanical hemostasis devices (endoloops or clips) were found to be more effective than epinephrine injection in preventing overall bleeding (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.87; p = 0.03) and early bleeding (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.02; p = 0.05). This was not established for delayed bleeding.

Conclusion

The routine use of prophylaxis submucosal epinephrine injection is safe and beneficial preventing postpolypectomy bleeding.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07-0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01-0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10-0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16-1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19-2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03-1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The use of hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional hemostatic measures in high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper GI bleed (NVUGIB) can be challenging. Hemospray is a novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for NVUGIB. Its efficacy in attaining hemostasis in NVUGIB is promising, particularly with respect to technically difficult lesions. However, most of the currently available data are focused on its application as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate its efficacy as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an addition to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device in NVUGIB.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with Forrest 1a and 1b ulcer treated with hemostatic spray as an adjunct to conventional endoscopic hemostatic measures between July 2013 and June 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The endpoints were initial hemostasis, 7-day rebleeding, 30-day rebleeding, all-cause, and GI-related 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (median age, 75 years, 50% men, 60% Forrest 1a ulcer) were treated with hemostatic spray as a second agent to adrenaline, or as an adjunct to the combination of adrenaline with either clips or a thermal device. Hemostatic spray was used as a second agent to adrenaline in 40% and as a third agent to combined dual therapy in 60%. Initial hemostasis was attained in 95% with an overall rebleeding rate at 7 days of 16%. There was no difference between the 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates. The combination of hemostatic spray and adrenaline resulted in 100% initial hemostasis and 25% 7-day rebleeding. Similarly, initial hemostasis was achieved in 92% with a 9% rebleeding rate when hemostatic spray was used as the third agent to 2 of the conventional measures. All-cause mortality was 15% with 1 GI-related death (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-center retrospective analysis, hemostatic spray appears promising as an adjunct to conventional methods for NVUGIB, although prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

Efficacy and toxicity of Samen-ista emulsion on treatment of cutaneous and mucosal bleeding

Despite new treatment methods, upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains challenging. Samen-ista emulsion is a new agent based on traditional medicine with coagulant properties. The efficacy and safety of Samen-ista were assessed in cutaneous and mucosal bleeding animal models. Coagulant properties of Samen-ista were evaluated using mice tail bleeding assay, marginal ear vein and upper gastrointestinal mucosal bleeding times in rabbits. After 7 days, clinical signs, mortality and end-organ (kidney, liver, lung, brain and gastric mucosa) histopathological changes were also examined. Samen-ista dose-dependently decreased mean cutaneous tail (128 vs. 14 s) and marginal ear vein (396 vs. 84 s) bleeding times. Rabbit's upper gastrointestinal bleeding time was also significantly decreased (214 vs. 15.8 s) upon Samen-ista local endoscopic application. Treatment with Samen-ista for 7 days did not cause any mortality, abnormal signs of bleeding, changes in appetite or significant histopathologicl changes. Samen-ista emulsion is well tolerated and highly effective in achieving hemostasis in cutaneous and mucosal bleeding animal models.

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.

Predictors of re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding

AIM

To predict the re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding.

METHODS

Over a 15-year period, data from 161 patients with delayed post-ES bleeding were retrospectively collected from a single medical center. To identify risk factors for re-bleeding after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis, parameters before, during and after the procedure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were analyzed. These included age, gender, blood biochemistry, co-morbidities, endoscopic diagnosis, presence of peri-ampullary diverticulum, occurrence of immediate post-ES bleeding, use of needle knife precut sphincterotomy, severity of delayed bleeding, endoscopic features on delayed bleeding, and type of endoscopic therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients (21.7%) had re-bleeding after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-ES bleeding. Univariate analysis revealed that malignant biliary stricture, serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL, initial bleeding severity, and bleeding diathesis were significant predictors of re-bleeding. By multivariate analysis, serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL and initial bleeding severity remained significant predictors. Re-bleeding was controlled by endoscopic therapy in a single (n = 23) or multiple (range, 2-7; n = 6) sessions in 29 of the 35 patients (82.9%). Four patients required transarterial embolization and one went for surgery. These five patients had severe bleeding when delayed post-ES bleeding occurred. One patient with decompensated liver cirrhosis died from re-bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Re-bleeding occurs in approximately one-fifth of patients after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-ES bleeding. Severity of initial bleeding and serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL are predictors of re-bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Randomized Trial of Monopolar Soft-mode Coagulation Versus Heater Probe Thermocoagulation for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Thermal coagulation is one of the most commonly used methods, with a high success rate. Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric carcinoma was developed and hemostasis with soft coagulation using hemostatic forceps was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic efficacy of soft coagulation with heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients who visited our hospital with hematemesis or melena underwent emergency endoscopy. Inclusion criteria were presentation with an actively bleeding ulcer, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or an adherent clot. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to give written informed consent or had a bleeding gastric malignancy. Patients were randomized to receive endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group S) or heater probe thermocoagulation (Group H). The primary endpoint was the primary hemostasis rate and secondary endpoints were rebleeding rate, complications, and the procedure time.

RESULTS

Between May 2010 and February 2012, a total of 111 patients (89 gastric ulcers and 22 duodenal ulcers) were enrolled. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 54 patients (96%) in Group S and 37 (67%) in Group H (P<0.0001). Rebleeding occurred in 7 patients in Group H and none in Group S. Of these 7 patients, urgent surgery was performed in 1. Perforation occurred in 2 patients in Group H, which was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, soft coagulation using monopolar hemostatic forceps is more effective than heater probe thermocoagulation for achieving hemostasis.

Injection and Cautery Methods for Nonvariceal Bleeding Control

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most common challenges faced by gastroenterologists and endoscopists in daily clinical practice. Endoscopic management of nonvariceal bleeding has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, with significant reduction of recurrent bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. Early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is recommended in all patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding within 24 hours of presentation, although appropriate resuscitation, stabilization of hemodynamic parameters, and optimization of comorbidity before endoscopy are essential.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding - a new approach to clinical and endoscopic management

Overt or occult gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequently observed condition in routine gastroenterological practice. Occult gastrointestinal bleeding is usually a purely incidental finding, based on the discovery of iron deficiency anemia in the laboratory or blood in stool (a positive Hemoccult test). However, overt bleeding accompanied by the clinical features of tarry stool, hematemesis, or hematochezia may be a life-threatening condition, calling for immediate emergency management. In contrast to traumatology, algorithms of emergency and intensive medicine are not sufficiently validated yet for acute life-threatening bleeding. The purpose of this review was to present all established and new endoscopic hemostasis techniques and to evaluate their efficacy, as well as to provide the treating endoscopist with practical advice on how he/she could incorporate these procedures into acute medical management. The recommendations are based on inspection of the study results in the recent published literature, as well as emergency medicine algorithms in traumatology.

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

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

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

BACKGROUND

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is useful to treat upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but its hemostatic efficacy has received little attention. Aims. This investigation attempted to determine whether additional endoscopic injection before APC could improve hemostatic efficacy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

From January 2007 to April 2011, adult patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were included. This investigation compared APC plus distilled water injection (combined group) to APC alone for treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Outcomes were assessed based on initial hemostasis, surgery, blood transfusion, hospital stay, rebleeding, and mortality at 30 days posttreatment.

RESULTS

Totally 120 selected patients were analyzed. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 59 patients treated with combined therapy and 57 patients treated with APC alone. No significant differences were noted between these groups in recurred bleeding, emergency surgery, 30-day mortality, hospital stay, or transfusion requirements. Comparing the combined end point of mortality plus the failure of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and the need for surgery revealed an advantage for the combined group (P = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy with APC plus distilled water injection was no more effective than APC alone in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers, whereas combined therapy was potentially superior for patients with poor overall outcomes.

Absence of Helicobacter pylori is not protective against peptic ulcer bleeding in elderly on offending agents: lessons from an exceptionally low prevalence population

Aim. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is exceptionally rare in population from the north-eastern region of Peninsular Malaysia. This provides us an opportunity to contemplate the future without H. pylori in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Methods. All cases in the GI registry with GI bleeding between 2003 and 2006 were reviewed. Cases with confirmed non-variceal aetiology were analysed. Rockall score > 5 was considered high risk for bleeding and primary outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality, recurrent bleeding and need for surgery.

Results. The incidence of non-variceal upper GI bleeding was 2.2/100,000 person-years. Peptic ulcer bleeding was the most common aetiology (1.8/100,000 person-years). In-hospital mortality (3.6%), recurrent bleeding (9.6%) and need for surgery (4.0%) were uncommon in this population with a largely low risk score (85.2% with score ≤5). Elderly were at greater risk for bleeding (mean 68.5 years, P = 0.01) especially in the presence of duodenal ulcers (P = 0.04) despite gastric ulcers being more common. NSAIDs, aspirin and co-morbidities were the main risk factors.

Conclusions. The absence of H. pylori infection may not reduce the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding in the presence of risk factors especially offending drugs in the elderly.

Impact of a bleeding care pathway in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding carries high morbidity and mortality. The use of a bleeding care pathway (BCP) may improve outcomes, but the results are inconsistent in various studies.

METHODS

A BCP for patients with UGI bleed with admission in a bleeding care unit (BCU) has been in use at our hospital since 2005. Prior to this, a high dependency unit was used for management of all emergencies including UGI bleeding. We compared the length of stay in the bleeding care/high dependency unit, total hospital stay, time to UGI endoscopy after admission, and survival between pre-2005 and post-2005 patients.

RESULTS

Five hundred and fifty-one patients were admitted with acute UGI bleed in the last 5 years; 121 belonged to pre-BCP (2004) period and 430 after implementation of the pathway (2005-2008). The mean (SD) time to UGI endoscopy improved from 21.3 (7.4) hours in the pre-BCU era to 9.4 (9.9) hours in BCU, p < 0.001. BCU stay was shorter from 2.41 (1.4) days pre-BCP to 1.93 (1.32) days post-BCP, (p < 0.001). The total hospital stay in pre-BCU (4.0 [2.08] days) as compared to BCU (4.13 [2.62] days; p = 0.58) was similar; there was no impact of BCU on survival.

CONCLUSION

A BCU implementation showed improvement in time to UGI endoscopy, and did not reduce BCU stay or impact survival.

Endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a comparison of epinephrine alone with epinephrine plus ethanolamine

BACKGROUND

Among the various methods of combined endoscopic therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers the use of adrenaline followed by injection of ethanolamine is minimally demanding in terms of the endoscopic skills and instrumentation but has not been adequately studied. The aim of the present study is to determine whether the injection of ethanolamine in combination with epinephrine compared to injection of epinephrine alone reduces rebleeding rates, need for surgery and overall mortality of patients with bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

Patients with ulcers and endoscopic features indicative of a high risk for spontaneous recurrent bleeding were included. High risk was defined by the Forrest classification. Patients were assigned to injection of epinephrine alone (n = 284) or epinephrine plus ethanolamine (n = 131).

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 96% of patients in both groups. We detected significant difference in rates of recurrent bleeding, 16.4% vs. 8.7%, for epinephrine and epinephrine plus ethanolamine respectively (P<0.05). When patients were stratified according to Forrest criteria, no significant difference could be found, although there was a trend towards less recurrent bleeding in the case of dual injection therapy in all patient subgroups. There was no significant difference in the proportions of patients who required surgery, 7.7% vs. 7.6% respectively. Mortality was equal (3.2 vs. 3.1%) in the two groups. No major complications from endoscopic treatment were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Adding ethanolamine to epinephrine for injection treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers decreases bleeding recurrence rates and represents a safe endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding ulcers.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

How evidence-based are current guidelines for managing patients with peptic ulcer bleeding?

Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2-receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. However, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs oral). There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a significant benefit of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Presently, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.

Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: is routine second-look necessary?

The benefit of routine repeat endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding is controversial. The aim of this Review is to evaluate the efficacy of second-look endoscopy by examining the evidence from published, randomized, clinical trials. Outcome measurements included recurrent bleeding, surgery, mortality, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay. Studies were categorized into those in which endoscopy was performed with endoscopic injection or thermal coagulation. On the basis of existing evidence, second-look endoscopy with heater probe reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding, but has no effect on overall mortality or the need for surgery. Therefore, routine second-look endoscopy cannot be recommended. Selected high-risk patients may benefit from second-look endoscopy, but the use of high-dose intravenous PPIs may obviate the need for this procedure.

Hydrogen peroxide improves the visibility of ulcer bases in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a single-center prospective study

BACKGROUND

Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVB) or hemorrhage (used interchangeably) is an emergency. Endoscopically applied hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) has been shown to improve visualization of the ulcer base.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that ulcer base clot clearance with 3% H2O2 improves the visualization of ANVB lesions compared to water alone.

METHODS

In this single-center prospective study, 320 patients with ANVB were examined, of which 81 met the entry criteria for evaluation. All patients with ANVB underwent urgent endoscopy. Those with adherent clots on the ulcer base were sprayed with 250 ml of water, followed by up to 100 ml of 3% H2O2. The main outcome measurement was Kalloo"s Visual Scores of the ulcer base before and after water and H2O2.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients with gastric ulcers (GU; 34) and duodenal ulcers (DU; 47) met the entry criteria. The mean improvement in grade from water to H2O2 was 2.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] (1.86, 2.23)). The mean volume of H2O2 used to clear clots was higher (70 ml) in patients who were negative for both Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use than in those who were positive for both (31 ml) (P = 0.00). More DU patients (72%) had visible vessels than GU patients (44%) (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

H2O2 improved the visualization of ulcer bases in ANVB. A smaller volume of H2O2 was required to clear clots in patients who used NSAIDs and had H. pylori infection. H2O2 identified more DU vessels. The use of H2O2 should be considered as a standard therapy in the management of clots in ANVB.

Treating delayed endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced bleeding: epinephrine injection with or without thermotherapy

AIM

To compare the hemostatic efficacy between epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with thermotherapy for delayed post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding.

METHODS

Cases with delayed post-ES bleeding undergoing epinephrine injection alone (epinephrine injection group, n = 26) or epinephrine combined with thermotherapy (combination therapy group, n = 33) in our institution between 1999 and 2007 were retrospectively investigated. The main outcome measurements were: initial endoscopic hemostasis, re-bleeding, complications, requirement of angiographic embolization or surgery, requirement for blood transfusion, and mortality.

RESULTS

The initial hemostatic efficacy was 96.2% for epinephrine injection alone and 100% for combination therapy (P = 0.44). There were four patients with re-bleeding in each group (16.0% vs 12.1%, P = 0.72). There was only one complication of pancreatitis from the combination therapy group. Three patients (11.5%) in the epinephrine injection group and one patient (3%) in the combination therapy group required angiographic embolization or surgery (P = 0.31). The total number of blood transfusions was not significantly different between the two groups (3.5 +/- 4.6 U vs 3.5 +/- 4.5 U, P = 0.94). There was no bleeding-related death in either group.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine injection alone is as effective as epinephrine injection combined with thermotherapy for the management of delayed post-ES bleeding.

Adrenaline injection plus argon plasma coagulation versus adrenaline injection plus hemoclips for treating high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Several combination endoscopic therapies are currently in use. The present study aimed to compare argon plasma coagulation (APC) + adrenaline injection (AI) with hemoclips + AI for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized trial, 172 patients with major stigmata of peptic ulcer bleeding were randomly assigned to receive APC + AI (n = 89) or hemoclips + AI (n = 83). In the event of rebleeding, the initial modality was used again. Patients in whom treatment or retreatment was unsuccessful underwent emergency surgery. The primary end point of rebleeding rate and secondary end points of initial and definitive hemostasis need for surgery and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in all background variables. Definitive hemostasis was achieved in 85 of 89 (95.5%) of the APC + AI and 82 of 83 (98.8%) of the hemoclips + AI group (P = 0.206). The mean volume of adrenaline injected in the two groups was equal (20.7 mL; P = 0.996). There was no significant difference in terms of initial hemostasis (96.6% versus 98.8%; P = 0.337), rate of rebleeding (11.2% versus 4.8%; P = 0.124), need for surgery (4.5% versus 1.2%; P = 0.266) and mortality (2.2% versus 1.2%; P = 0.526). When compared for the combined end point of mortality plus rebleeding and the need for surgery, there was an advantage for the hemoclip group (6% versus 15.7%, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Hemoclips + AI has no superiority over APC + AI in treating patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. Hemoclips + AI may be superior when a combination of all negative outcomes is considered.

Endoscopic resection of large pedunculated colonic polyps and risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with adrenaline injection versus endoloop and hemoclip: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Postpolypectomy bleeding is a major complication, especially in large pedunculated colonic polyps. Several endoscopic techniques have been evolved for prevention of bleeding episodes. The aim of this study is to evaluate postpolypectomy bleeding rates in large (>2 cm) pedunculated colonic polyps using either adrenaline injection alone or loop and clip application as prophylactic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with one pedunculated colonic polyps (>2 cm) were included in a double-blind study and studied prospectively. Exclusion criteria were coexistence of other large polyps, antiplatelet, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. In group A (n = 32), adrenaline (1:10,000) was injected in the base of the stalk followed by conventional polypectomy using mixed coagulation and cutting current. In group B (n = 32), a detachable snare was placed at the base of the stalk followed by conventional polypectomy and clip application in the residual stalk above the snare. We evaluate the efficacy of combined endoscopic methods in early and late postpolypectomy bleeding rate in large pedunculated colonic polyps, severity of bleeding, days of hospitalization, and required transfusions.

RESULTS

Overall, bleeding complications occurred in 5/64 patients (7.81%). In group A (adrenaline injection alone), four patients (12.5%) had a bleeding episode: two (6.25%) occurred during the first 24 h and two (6.25%) between days 7 and 14 from the procedure. In group B only one patient (3.12%) had a late bleeding episode (p = 0.02). Severity of late bleeding in group B patients (one moderate bleeding) versus group A patients (one moderate and one severe bleeding) and need for transfusions (1 versus 5 blood units) were lower (p = 0.02). Hospitalization days did not differ between the two groups, but colonoscopy time was significantly higher in group B versus group A (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Combined endoscopic techniques seem to be more effective in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in large pedunculated colonic polyps.

Endoscopic resection of large pedunculated colonic polyps and risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with adrenaline injection versus endoloop and hemoclip: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Postpolypectomy bleeding is a major complication, especially in large pedunculated colonic polyps. Several endoscopic techniques have been evolved for prevention of bleeding episodes. The aim of this study is to evaluate postpolypectomy bleeding rates in large (>2 cm) pedunculated colonic polyps using either adrenaline injection alone or loop and clip application as prophylactic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with one pedunculated colonic polyps (>2 cm) were included in a double-blind study and studied prospectively. Exclusion criteria were coexistence of other large polyps, antiplatelet, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. In group A (n = 32), adrenaline (1:10,000) was injected in the base of the stalk followed by conventional polypectomy using mixed coagulation and cutting current. In group B (n = 32), a detachable snare was placed at the base of the stalk followed by conventional polypectomy and clip application in the residual stalk above the snare. We evaluate the efficacy of combined endoscopic methods in early and late postpolypectomy bleeding rate in large pedunculated colonic polyps, severity of bleeding, days of hospitalization, and required transfusions.

RESULTS

Overall, bleeding complications occurred in 5/64 patients (7.81%). In group A (adrenaline injection alone), four patients (12.5%) had a bleeding episode: two (6.25%) occurred during the first 24 h and two (6.25%) between days 7 and 14 from the procedure. In group B only one patient (3.12%) had a late bleeding episode (p = 0.02). Severity of late bleeding in group B patients (one moderate bleeding) versus group A patients (one moderate and one severe bleeding) and need for transfusions (1 versus 5 blood units) were lower (p = 0.02). Hospitalization days did not differ between the two groups, but colonoscopy time was significantly higher in group B versus group A (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Combined endoscopic techniques seem to be more effective in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in large pedunculated colonic polyps.

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.

Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite advances in management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, mortality is still 10%. This study aimed to identify predictive factors and to develop a prediction model for mortality among patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with endoscopic stigmata of active bleeding, visible vessels, or adherent clots were recruited, and risk factors for mortality were identified in this deprivation cohort by using multiple stepwise logistic regression. A prediction model was then built on the basis of these factors and validated in the evaluation cohort.

RESULTS

From 1993 to 2003, 3220 patients with bleeding peptic ulcers were treated. Two hundred eighty-four of the patients developed rebleeding (8.8%); emergency surgery was performed on 47 of these patients, whereas others were managed with endoscopic retreatment. Two hundred twenty-nine of these sustained in-hospital death (7.1%). In patients older than 70 years, presence of comorbidity, more than 1 listed comorbidity, hematemesis on presentation, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, in-hospital bleeding, rebleeding, and need for surgery were significant predictors for mortality. Helicobacter pylori-related ulcers had lower risk of mortality. The receiver operating characteristic curve comparing the prediction of mortality with actual mortality showed an area under the curve of 0.842. From 2004 to 2006, data were collected prospectively from a second cohort of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, and mortality was predicted by using the model developed. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.729.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic hemostasis, advanced age, presence of listed comorbidity, multiple comorbidities, hypovolemic shock, in-hospital bleeding, rebleeding, and need for surgery successfully predicted in-hospital mortality.

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

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

Proton pump inhibitors and recurrent bleeding in peptic ulcer disease

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is one of the main lesions responsible for upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, as well as esophageal varices and Mallory-Weiss tear. Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/aspirin are the major responsible causes. In cases of upper GI bleeding, urgent endoscopy is performed after stabilization of vital signs. There are several modalities for controlling bleeding in PUD, such as ethanol injection or hypertonic saline with epinephrine. Recurrent bleeding occurs in 20% of patients after endoscopic therapy. The combination of endoscopic intervention and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is necessary to achieve hemostasis of active bleeding. It has been reported that high-dose omeprazole (80 mg bolus injection, then 8 mg/h continuous infusion for 72 h, then 40 mg/day orally for 1 week) can reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality from hemorrhagic shock in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding, as compared with standard-dose omeprazole. The metabolism of PPIs is dependent upon P450 2C19 genotypes and the clinical usefulness of genotypic analysis remains to be determined.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of proton-pump inhibition before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Randomized trials suggest high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) administered before gastroscopy in suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding downstage bleeding ulcer stigmata. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

A decision model compared high-dose IVPPI initiated while awaiting endoscopy with IVPPI administration on the basis of endoscopic findings. IVPPIs were given to all patients undergoing endoscopic hemostasis for 72 hours thereafter. Once the IV regimen was completed or for patients with low-risk endoscopic lesions, an oral daily PPI was given for the remainder of the time horizon (30 days after endoscopy). The unit of effectiveness was the proportion of patients without rebleeding, representing the denominator of the cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per no rebleeding). Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature and national databases.

RESULTS

IVPPIs before endoscopy were both slightly more costly and effective than after gastroscopy in the U.S. and Canadian settings, with cost-effectiveness ratios of US$5048 versus $4933 and CAN$6064 versus $6025 and incremental costs of US$45,673 and CAN$19,832 to prevent one additional rebleeding episode, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed robust results in the US In Canada, intravenous proton-pump inhibitors (IVPPIs) before endoscopy became more effective and less costly (dominant strategy) when the uncomplicated stay for high-risk patients increased above 6 days or that of low-risk patients decreased below 3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

With conservative estimates and high-quality data, IVPPIs given before endoscopy are slightly more effective and costly than no administration. In Canada, this approach becomes dominant as the duration of hospitalization for high-risk ulcer patients increases or that of low-risk ulcer patients decreases.

Endoscopic clipping versus injection and thermo-coagulation in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemoclips, injection therapy and thermocoagulation (heater probe or electrocoagulation) are the most commonly used types of endoscopic hemostasis for the control of non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of hemoclips versus injection or thermocoagulation in endoscopic hemostasis by pooling data from the literature.

METHOD

Publications in the English literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) as well as abstracts in major international conferences were searched using the keywords "hemoclips" and "bleeding", and 15 trials fulfilling the search criteria were found. Outcome measures included: initial hemostasis (after endoscopic intervention); recurrent bleeding; definitive hemostasis (no recurrent bleeding until the end of follow-up); the requirement for surgical intervention; and all-cause mortality. The heterogeneity of trials was examined and the effects were pooled by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1156 patients recruited in the 15 studies, 390 were randomly assigned to receive clips alone, 242 received clips combined with injection, 359 received injection alone, and 165 received thermocoagulation with or without injection. Definitive hemostasis was higher with hemoclips (86.5%) than injection (75.4%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.30), or endoscopic clips with injection (88.5%) compared with injections alone (78.1%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.23), leading to a reduced requirement for surgery but no difference in mortality. Compared with thermocoagulation, there was no improvement in definitive hemostasis with clips (81.5% versus 81.2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31). These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. There was also no difference between clips and thermocoagulation in rebleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. The reported locations of failed hemoclip applications included posterior wall of duodenal bulb, posterior wall of gastric body and lesser curve of the stomach.

CONCLUSION

Successful application of hemoclips is superior to injection alone but comparable to thermocoagulation in producing definitive hemostasis. There was no difference in all-cause mortality irrespective of the modalities of endoscopic treatment.