Endoscopic intervention in bleeding peptic ulcer

Endoscopic projection of the gastroduodenal artery: Anatomical implications for bleeding management

INTRODUCTION

Peptic ulcers account for 50% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidents. Bleedings from large vessels, such as the gastroduodenal artery, are associated with increased mortality. Ulcers located on the posterior wall of the duodenum show the highest risk for erosion of the gastroduodenal artery. Endoscopic management is challenging and rebleeding rates are high due to internal and external confounding factors such as anatomical variability and gastric insufflation. We aimed to correlate macroscopic and endoscopic anatomy for assessment of implications for clinical management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The gastroduodenal artery was dissected in 10 anatomical specimens. The points of contact of the artery with the posterior wall of the duodenum were marked with needles. The endoluminal position of the needles was recorded by standardized gastroscopy and a 3-dimensional virtual reconstruction was carried out for visualization of the artery's course.

RESULTS

The artery's proximal and distal points of contact with the duodenum were 27.2mm (range 15-30mm; SD 6.7mm) and 15mm (range 10-20mm; SD 3.5mm), respectively, from the pylorus. The gastroduodenal artery branches from the common hepatic artery within the omentum minus running adjacent to the duodenal wall to the head of the pancreas. From endoscopic perspective, the gastroduodenal artery's course was directed towards the tip of the gastroscope.

CONCLUSION

Due to the peculiar extraluminal course of the gastroduodenal artery the arterial blood flow projects into the direction of the gastroscope during endoscopic intervention. Measures for bleeding control might have to be applied aboral from the bleeding site.

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.

Changes in aetiology and clinical outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the last 15 years

OBJECTIVES

The diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been improved during the last decades. The aim of this study was to compare the aetiology and clinical outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) between two distinct periods during the last 15 years.

METHODS

The causes of AUGIB and clinical outcome of 668 patients hospitalised with the problem in 1986-1987 were compared to 636 patients with AUGIB in 2000-2001. Patients were admitted to our hospital or they bled while they were inpatients for other reasons. No patient was excluded because of age or concurrent diseases. Endoscopic haemostasis with adrenaline injection for bleeding peptic ulcers was performed in the second period while no endoscopic method of haemostasis was performed in the first period.

RESULTS

We observed an increase in the age of patients (56.5 +/- 16.9 vs 62.9 +/- 17.5 years, P < 0.0001) and the percentage of patients who received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before bleeding (from 44% to 63.5%, P < 0.0001). An increase in the diagnosis rate of gastric ulcer (12% vs 19.2%, P = 0.005) and varices (13.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001) with a simultaneous decrease in that of erosive gastroduodenitis (18.4% vs 7.2%, P < 0.0001) and duodenal ulcer (48.7% vs 33.3%, P < 0.0001) as a cause of bleeding was also observed. In peptic ulcer bleeding, emergency surgical haemostasis was reduced from 14% to 5.3%, P < 0.001. Overall mortality was also reduced from 5.2% to 3.1% and in peptic ulcer bleeding patients from 3.3% to 2.4%, respectively, but the differences are not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The aetiology of AUGIB has changed during the last 15 years probably due to the better therapeutic approach to chronic duodenal ulcers and increasing use of NSAIDs in the elderly. Emergency surgical haemostasis has been reduced but the reduction of mortality was not significant.

Predictive factors for rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after multipolar electrocoagulation: a retrospective analysis

The role of endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding is well-documented. Nevertheless, rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of patients, and such patients are at high risk for death without early retreatment or definitive surgery. The aim of our study was to predict which patients would rebleed within 1 month after successful multipolar electrocoagulation of 100 patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding (spurting, oozing, or nonbleeding visible vessel). We had achieved initial hemostasis in 97 patients and carried out univariate and multivariate analyses to predict which patients would rebleed. Rebleeding occurred within 1 month in 17 (17.5%) patients. we correlated 20 clinical and endoscopic factors with rebleeding episodes. With univariate analysis, blood transfusion of 500 ml or more at entry (p < 0.0001) and use of cimetidine (p = 0.01) were statistically significant for rebleeding. With multivariate analysis, use of omeprazole was an independent factor for preventing rebleeding (odds ratio, 7.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.642-35.929). We suggest that omeprazole may help to prevent rebleeding in patients who have had hemostasis with multipolar electrocoagulation.

The effect of endoscopic injection therapy on the clinical outcome of patients with benign peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to investigate the effect of endoscopic injection therapy on the clinical outcome of patients with benign peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

In this study 1203 patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding over a 5-year period (January 1987 to April 1991) before endoscopic therapy and 1028 patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding after introduction of endoscopic therapy (May 1991 to March 1996) were assessed. Endoscopic therapy was performed in all patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels during emergency endoscopy with injection of adrenaline, 1:10,000 in 0.9% saline.

RESULTS

The introduction of injection therapy was associated with a reduction in transfusion requirements (from 5.1 +/- 2.6 to 3.4 +/- 1.8 units), hospitalization days (from 10.8 +/- 6.5 to 7.8 +/- 5.1 days), surgical interventions (from 50.6% to 23.6%), and mortality (from 12.9% to 4.6%) in patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels (P < 0.05) but remained unchanged in the rest. Patients with gastric ulcer had a more pronounced reduction in emergency surgical haemostasis and mortality than patients with duodenal ulcer. There were no deaths or procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic injection therapy with adrenaline/saline is a simple, low-cost, and safe method that improves the clinical outcome and reduces the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

Factors related to the failure of endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding gastric ulcer

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic injection therapy is effective in controlling initial haemorrhage from peptic ulcer, between 10% to 30% of patients suffer rebleeding.

AIM

To assess the factors that may predict the failure of endoscopic injection in patients bleeding from high risk gastric ulcer.

SUBJECTS

One hundred and seventy eight patients admitted for a gastric ulcer with a bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were included.

METHODS

Patients received endoscopic therapy by injection for adrenaline and polidocanol. Twelve clinical and endoscopic variables were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to ascertain their significance as predictive factor of therapeutic failure.

RESULTS

Eighty seven per cent (155 of 178) of patients had no further bleeding after endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic injection failed in 23 (13%) patients: 20 (12%) continued to bleed or rebleed, and three (1%) patients could not be treated because of inaccessibility of the lesion. Logistic regression analysis showed that therapeutic failure was significantly related to: (1) the presence of hypovolaemic shock (p = 0.09, OR 2.38, 95% CI: 0.86, 6.56), (2) the presence of active bleeding at endoscopy (p = 0.02, OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.12, 7.91), (3) ulcer location high on the lesser curvature (p = 0.04, OR 2.79, 95% CI: 1.01, 7.69), and (4) ulcer size larger than 2 cm (p = 0.01, OR 3.64, 95% CI: 1.34, 9.89).

CONCLUSION

These variables may enable identification of those patients bleeding from gastric ulcer who would not benefit from injection therapy.