Prophylactic angiographic embolisation after endoscopic control of bleeding to high-risk peptic ulcers: a randomised controlled trial

Peptic ulcer disease

Annual prevalence estimates of peptic ulcer disease range between 0·12% and 1·5%. Peptic ulcer disease is usually attributable to Helicobacter pylori infection, intake of some medications (such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications), or being critically ill (stress-related), or it can be idiopathic. The clinical presentation is usually uncomplicated, with peptic ulcer disease management based on eradicating H pylori if present, the use of acid-suppressing medications-most often proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)-or addressing complications, such as with early endoscopy and high-dose PPIs for peptic ulcer bleeding. Special considerations apply to patients on antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents. H pylori treatment has evolved, with the choice of regimen dictated by local antibiotic resistance patterns. Indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis vary across societies; most suggest PPIs for patients at highest risk of developing a peptic ulcer, its complications, or its recurrence. Additional research areas include the use of potassium-competitive acid blockers and H pylori vaccination; the optimal approach for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding requires more robust determinations of optimal patient selection and treatment selection, if any. Appropriate continuation of PPI use outweighs most possible side-effects if given for approved indications, while de-prescribing should be trialled when a definitive indication is no longer present.

Risk factors for rebleeding and mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization for patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To investigate factors associated with risk for rebleeding and 30-day mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records and included all patients who had undergone prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, following an endoscopy-verified and treated peptic Sulcer bleeding, from 2016 to 2021. Data were collected from electronic health records and imaging from the embolization procedures. Primary outcomes were rebleeding and 30-day mortality. We performed logistical regression analyses for both outcomes with possible risk factors. Risk factors included: active bleeding; visible hemoclips; Rockall-score; anatomical variants; standardized embolization procedure; and number of endoscopies prior to embolization.

RESULTS

We included 176 patients. Rebleeding occurred in 25% following embolization and 30-day mortality was 15%. Not undergoing a standardized embolization procedure increased the odds of both rebleeding (odds ratio 3.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.395-6.579) and 30-day overall mortality by 3.262 (1.252-8.497). More than one endoscopy was associated with increased odds of rebleeding (odds ratio 2.369, 95% CI 1.088-5.158). High Rockall-score increased the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 2.587, 95% CI 1.243-5.386). Active bleeding, visible hemoclips, and anatomical variants did not affect risk of rebleeding or 30-day mortality. Reasons for deviation from standard embolization procedure were anatomical variations, targeted treatment without embolizing the gastroduodenal artery, and technical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Deviation from the standard embolization procedure increased the risk of rebleeding and 30-day mortality, more than one endoscopy prior to embolization was associated with higher odds of rebleeding, and a high Rockall-score increased the risk of 30-day mortality. We suggest that patients with these risk factors are monitored closely following embolization. Early detection of rebleeding may allow for proper and early re-intervention.

Factors influencing re-bleeding after trans-arterial embolization for endoscopically unmanageable peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Endoscopic hemostasis is the standard treatment. However, various conditions complicate endoscopic hemostasis. Transarterial visceral embolization (TAE) may be helpful as a rescue therapy. This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with rebleeding after TAE.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the records of 156 patients treated with TAE between January 2007 and December 2021. Rebleeding was defined as the presence of melena, hematemesis, or hematochezia, with a fall (>2.0 g/dl) in hemoglobin level or shock after TAE. The primary outcomes were rebleeding rate and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were selected, and rebleeding within a month after TAE occurred in 15 patients (21.4%). Among the patients included in rebleeding group, significant increases were observed in the prevalence of thrombocytopenia (73.3% vs. 16.4%, p<.001) and ulcers >1 cm (93.3% vs 54.5%, p = .014). The mean AIMS65 (albumin, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, age >65 years) score (2.3 vs 1.4, p = .009) was significantly higher in the rebleeding group. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that thrombocytopenia (odds ratio 31.92, 95% confidence interval 6.24-270.6, p<.001) and larger ulcer size (odds ratio 27.19, 95% confidence interval 3.27-677.7, p=.010) significantly increased the risk of rebleeding after TAE.

CONCLUSION

TAE was effective in the treatment of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. AIMS65 score was a significant predictor of rebleeding after TAE, and thrombocytopenia and larger ulcer size increased the risk of rebleeding after TAE.

The value of endoscopically-placed metal clips for transcatheter arterial embolization in the treatment of recurrent acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) is a common clinical emergency. Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is usually used to locate the bleeding site and provide interventional embolization. During TAE, there is a low positive rate of angiography, and localization of the culprit vessel is difficult. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the role of preplaced metal clips in TAE for ANVUGIB patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with ANVUGIB in whom bleeding sites were identified endoscopically and treated with TAE from January 1st, 2005 to July 1st, 2021 were retrospectively included. According to the presence or absence of preplaced metal clips, they were divided into two groups. The main outcome measurements included the clinical success rate and rebleeding rate. Secondary outcome measurements included the mortality rate and the need for surgery. Predictors of the clinical success rate were assessed with univariate analysis and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included in this study, and all of them had undergone arterial embolization. There were 73 cases in the group with metal clips and 29 cases in the group without metal clips with consistent baseline information. The group with metal clips had a higher clinical success rate (82.2% vs. 45.0%, P < 0.001), lower rebleeding rate (8.2% vs 27.6%, P = 0.039) and additional surgery rate (11.0% vs 20.7%, P < 0.001) than the group without metal clips. In univariate analysis, ROCKALL score and preplaced metal clip marking were shown to affect clinical success rate. In multivariate analysis, metal clip marking was found to facilitate clinical success (OR = 3.750, 95CI = 1.456-9.659, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In ANVUGIB patients, preplaced metal clips could improve the clinical success rate of TAE and reduce the mortality rate and the risk of rebleeding.

Factors influencing outcome of angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage related to peptic ulceration

PURPOSE

Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of transcatheter embolization for gastroduodenal peptic ulcer bleeding are unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcome and factors associated with early recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for severe, upper gastroduodenal hemorrhage associated with peptic ulcer and refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

A monocenter, retrospective study from 2005 to 2020 including 76 consecutive patients who underwent TAE as first-line therapy for bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers refractory to endoscopic therapy. Patient demographics, endoscopy findings, co-morbidities and interventional procedure findings were recorded. The outcome measures were technical and clinical success, procedure related complications, recurrent bleeding, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and overall survival.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 96% and the clinical success rate was 65,8%. The rebleeding and 30-day mortality rate were 30,7% and 22,4% respectively. A higher international normalized ratio (INR) was a statistically significant risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 1.67-30.70; p = 0.008). The mean overall survival was 3.76 years (1.16---5.09; 95% CI); a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a lower Rockall score were significantly associated with a longer overall survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35; p = 0.0001; HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; p = 0.003) respectively. Early rebleeding was significantly associated with a lower overall survival (HR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.57-4.71; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

A higher INR was a significant risk factor with a higher 30-day mortality. A lower CCI, a lower Rockall score and the absence of early rebleeding were significantly associated with a longer overall survival.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders.

METHODS

This was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of -0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled).

RESULTS

100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03160911.

Comparison of Over-the-Scope Clips to Standard Endoscopic Treatment as the Initial Treatment in Patients With Bleeding From a Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Cause : A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Current endoscopic methods in the control of acute nonvariceal bleeding have a small but clinically significant failure rate. The role of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as the first treatment has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE

To compare OTSCs with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

DESIGN

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03216395).

SETTING

University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong, China, and Australia.

PATIENTS

190 adult patients with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Standard hemostatic treatment (n = 97) or OTSC (n = 93).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 30-day probability of further bleeds. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further intervention, blood transfusion, and hospitalization.

RESULTS

The 30-day probability of further bleeding in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 14.6% (14 of 97) and 3.2% (3 of 93), respectively (risk difference, 11.4 percentage points [95% CI, 3.3 to 20.0 percentage points]; P = 0.006). Failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 6 versus 1 (risk difference, 5.1 percentage points [CI, 0.7 to 11.8 percentage points]), respectively, and 30-day recurrent bleeding was 8 versus 2 (risk difference, 6.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 14.4 percentage points]), respectively. The need for further interventions was 8 versus 2, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 4 versus 2, respectively. In a post hoc analysis with a composite end point of failure to successfully apply assigned treatment and further bleeds, the event rate was 15 of 97 (15.6%) and 6 of 93 (6.5%) in the standard and OTSC groups, respectively (risk difference, 9.1 percentage points [CI, 0.004 to 18.3 percentage points]).

LIMITATION

Clinicians were not blinded to treatment and the option of crossover treatment.

CONCLUSION

Over-the-scope clips, as an initial treatment, may be better than standard treatment in reducing the risk for further bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes that are amenable to OTSC placement.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

General Research Fund to the University Grant Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Embolization for acute nonvariceal bleeding of upper and lower gastrointestinal tract: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleedings (GIBs) are pathological conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Embolization without angiographic evidence of contrast media extravasation is proposed as an effective procedure in patients with clinical and/or laboratory signs of bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to define common clinical practice and clinical and technical outcomes of blind and preventive embolization for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

MAIN BODY

Through the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar database, an extensive search was performed in the fields of empiric and preventive embolization for the treatment of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleedings (UGIB and LGIB). Inclusion criteria were: articles in English for which it has been possible to access the entire content; adults patients treated with empiric or blind transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for UGIB and/or LGIB. Only studies that analysed clinical and technical success rate of blind and empiric TAE for UGIB and/or LGIB were considered for our research. Exclusion criteria were: recurrent articles from the same authors, articles written in other languages, those in which the entire content could not be accessed and that articles were not consistent to the purposes of our research. We collected pooled data on 1019 patients from 32 separate articles selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 22 studies focused on UGIB (total 773 patients), one articles focused on LGIB (total 6 patients) and 9 studies enrolled patients with both UGIB and LGIB (total 240 patients). Technical success rate varied from 62% to 100%, with a mean value of 97.7%; clinical success rate varied from 51% to 100% with a mean value of 80%. The total number of complications was 57 events out of 1019 procedures analysed.

CONCLUSION

TAE is an effective procedure in the treatment of UGIB patients in which angiography does not demonstrate direct sign of ongoing bleeding. The attitude in the treatment of LGIBs must be more prudent in relation to poor vascular anastomoses and the high risk of intestinal ischemia. Blind and preventive procedures cumulatively present a relatively low risk of complications, compared to a relatively high technical and clinical success.

[Endovascular embolization for prevention of recurrent bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of preventive endovascular hemostasis in patients with high risk of recurrent bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed treatment outcomes in 158 patients with ulcerative gastroduodenal bleeding and high risk of recurrence (≥17 scores), Forrest 1-2 A/B and mortality (SAPS II score ≥30). Endovascular embolization of the left gastric or gastroduodenal artery was performed to prevent recurrent bleeding.

RESULTS

Endovascular hemostasis was technically successful in 94.4% of cases (153 patients). Embolization could not be performed due to technical reasons in 5 patients. One patient developed retroperitoneal hematoma as a complication after transcatheter angiography and embolization that required surgical intervention. Recurrent bleeding after technically successful embolization occurred in 11 (7%) patients. The PVA microemboli and spirals were used for embolization of the left gastric and gastroduodenal arteries, respectively. Additional PVA microemboli were also used in gastroduodenal artery in some cases. Twenty-six (16.5%) patients died.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular hemostasis in patients with severe comorbidities (SAPS II score ≥30) and high risk of recurrent bleeding (≥17 scores) reduced the incidence of recurrent bleeding to 6.96% and mortality to 17%.

Scheduled second look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis to patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The recommendation of second look endoscopy (SLOGD) in selected patients at high risk for rebleeding has been inconclusive. This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of SLOGD in selected patients predicted at high risk of recurrent bleeding.

METHODS

From a cohort of 939 patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who underwent endoscopic hemostasis, we derived a 9-point risk score (age > 60, Male, ulcer ≥ 2 cm in size, posterior bulbar or lesser curve gastric ulcer, Forrest I bleeding, haemoglobin < 8 g/dl) to predict recurrent bleeding. We then validated the score in another cohort of 1334 patients (AUROC 0.77). To test the hypothesis that SLOGD in high-risk patients would improve outcomes, we did a randomized controlled trial to compare scheduled SLOGD with observation alone in those predicted at high risk of rebleeding (a score of ≥ 5). The primary outcome was clinical bleeding within 30 days of the index bleed.

RESULTS

Of 314 required, we enrolled 157 (50%) patients (SLOGD n = 78, observation n = 79). Nine (11.8%) in SLOGD group and 14 (18.2%) in observation group reached primary outcome (absolute difference 6.4%, 95% CI - 5.0% to 17.8%). Twenty-one of 69 (30.4%) patients who underwent SLOGD needed further endoscopic treatment. No surgery for bleeding control was needed. There were 6 vs. 3 of 30-day deaths in either group (p = 0.285, log rank). No difference was observed regarding blood transfusion and hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In this aborted trial that enrolled patients with bleeding peptic ulcers at high-risk of recurrent bleeding, scheduled SLOGD did not significantly improve outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov:NCT02352155.

Gastroduodenale Ulkuskrankheit und Helicobacter pylori

Risikofaktoren für eine gastrointestinale Ulkusblutung Die Helicobacter-pylori-Gastritis (H. pylori-Gastritis) und die Therapie mit nicht steroidalen Antirheumatika (NSAR) sind die wichtigsten Risikofaktoren für die Entstehung eines peptischen Ulkus (PUD) und einer Ulkusblutung. Eine Infektion mit H. pylori erhöht das Risiko einer Ulkusblutung bei Patienten mit PUD, die NSAR, Aspirin oder einen anderen Plättchen-Aggregationshemmer einnehmen. H. pylori-positive Patienten unter kombinierter Plättchen-Aggregationshemmung tragen das höchste Blutungsrisiko. Evidenzbasierte interdisziplinäre Behandlungsempfehlungen zur sicheren NSAR-Anwendung aus dem Jahr 2020 berücksichtigen sowohl das kardiovaskuläre als auch das gastrointestinale Risikoprofil der einzelnen Patienten. Für Patienten mit einem moderaten Risiko für die Entstehung eines PUD wird die Therapiekombination aus NSAR und Protonen-Pumpen-Inhibitoren (PPI) oder eine Monotherapie mit selektiven COX-2-Inhibitoren (COX-2: Cyclooxygenase-2) empfohlen. Patienten mit einem hohen Blutungsrisiko dagegen sollten eine Kombinationstherapie aus selektivem COX-2-Inhibitor und PPI erhalten. Bei Patienten mit einem hohen kardiovaskulären Risiko, bei denen auf eine NSAR-Therapie nicht verzichtet werden kann, werden Naproxen oder Celecoxib empfohlen.

Die Behandlung der gastrointestinalen Ulkusblutung Die Ulkusblutung geht mit einer erhöhten Letalität einher. Bei hämodynamisch stabilen Patienten mit Zeichen einer oberen gastrointestinalen Blutung und erhöhtem Sterberisiko (Glasgow-Blatchford Score ≥ 12) ist die Durchführung einer Ösophago-Gastro-Duodenoskopie (ÖGD) nach 6–24 Stunden ausreichend, eine Notfall-ÖGD (innerhalb der ersten 6 Stunden) verbessert vergleichsweise die 30-Tage-Letalität nicht. Nach erfolgreicher endoskopischer Hämostase reduziert eine zusätzliche prophylaktische angiografische Embolisation das Risiko einer erneuten Blutung nicht.

Die Helicobacter-pylori-Eradikation Eine erfolgreiche H. pylori-Eradikation reduziert das Risiko für die Entwicklung eines Magenkarzinoms bei Verwandten ersten Grades von Patienten mit Magenkarzinom um 73 %. Bei Patienten mit erfolgreicher endoskopischer Behandlung eines Magenfrühkarzinoms ist eine H. pylori-Testung mit anschließender Eradikation ebenfalls sinnvoll, da hierdurch die Rate an metachronen Magenkarzinomen halbiert werden konnte. Die Standard-Triple-Therapie zu der H. pylori-Eradikation zeigt aufgrund zunehmender Antibiotikaresistenzen, insbesondere gegen Makrolide, eine nachlassende Wirksamkeit. Dementsprechend wird die Bismut-haltige Quadrupel-Therapie als empirische Standard-Erstlinientherapie empfohlen.

Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization reduces rebleeding in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the improvement in the endoscopic hemostasis of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), rebleeding remains a major concern.

AIM

To assess the role of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) added to successful hemostatic treatment among NVUGIB patients.

METHODS

We searched three databases from inception through October 19^th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies were eligible. Studies compared patients with NVUGIB receiving PTAE to those who did not get PTAE. Investigated outcomes were rebleeding, mortality, reintervention, need for surgery and transfusion, length of hospital (LOH), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. In the quantitative synthesis, odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated with the random-effects model and interpreted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included a total of 3 RCTs and 9 observational studies with a total of 1329 patients, with 486 in the intervention group. PTAE was associated with lower odds of rebleeding (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.29–0.78). There was no difference in the 30-d mortality rates (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.39–1.72) between the PTAE and control groups. Patients who underwent PTAE treatment had a lower chance for reintervention (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.31–0.76) or rescue surgery (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14–0.92). The LOH and ICU stay was shorter in the PTAE group, but the difference was non-significant [WMD = -3.77, 95%CI: (-8.00)–0.45; WMD = -1.33, 95%CI: (-2.84)–0.18, respectively].

CONCLUSION

PTAE is associated with lower odds of rebleeding and any reintervention in NVUGIB. However, further RCTs are needed to have a higher level of evidence.

Endotherapy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH) is a common GI emergency with significant morbidity and mortality. Triaging cases on the basis of patient-related factors, restrictive blood transfusion strategy, and hemodynamic stabilization are key initial steps for the management of patients with NVUGIH. Endoscopy remains a vital step for both diagnosis and definitive management. Multiple studies and guidelines have now defined the optimum timing for performing the endoscopy after hospitalization, to better the outcome. Conventional methods for achieving endoscopic hemostasis, such as injection therapy, contact, and noncontact thermal therapy, and mechanical therapy, such as through-the-scope clips, have reported to have 76 to 90% efficacy for primary hemostasis. Newer modalities to enhance hemostasis rates have come in vogue. Many of these modalities, such as cap-mounted clips, coagulation forceps, and hemostatic powders have proved to be efficacious in multiple studies. Thus, the newer modalities are recommended not only for management of persistent bleed and recurrent bleed after failed initial hemostasis, using conventional modalities but also now being advocated for primary hemostasis. Failure of endotherapy would warrant radiological or surgical intervention. Some newer tools to optimize endotherapy, such as endoscopic Doppler probes, for determining flow in visible or underlying vessels in ulcer bleed are now being evaluated. This review is focused on the technical aspects and efficacy of various endoscopic modalities, both conventional and new. A synopsis of the various studies describing and comparing the modalities have been outlined. Postendoscopic management including Helicobacter pylori therapy and starting of anticoagulants and antiplatelets have also been outlined.

Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: a meta-analysis

Background

To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane Library were queried for full-text articles published up to December 2019. The following keywords were used: “prophylactic embolization”, “supplement embolization”, “gastrointestinal bleeding”, and “ulcer bleeding”. High-risk ulcers were defined based on endoscopic findings (i.e., large ulcers, Forrest class I-IIb) and/or clinical presentation (i.e., hypotension, decreased hemoglobin during endoscopy). Only comparative studies investigating PTAE versus conservative treatment after achieving endoscopic hemostasis were included. Baseline study characteristics, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, mortality, and PTAE-related complication rates were investigated. Quantitative analyses were performed with Stata 15.1.

Results

Among the five included original studies, a total of 265 patients received PTAE and 617 were managed conservatively after endoscopy. The rebleeding rate (6.8% vs 14.3%, p = 0.003) and mortality (4.5% vs 8.8%, p = 0.032) of patients from the PTAE group were lower than the control group. PTAE also reduced the cumulative need for future surgical intervention (3.0% vs 14.4%, p = 0.005). The PTAE-related major and minor events were 0.75% and 14.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

PTAE had therapeutic potentials in reducing rebleeding risk, need for surgical intervention, and morality in high-risk peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. The embolization-associated adverse events were minimal. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and resources for performing endovascular interventions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00371-2.

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.

Towards personalised management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Guidelines from national and international professional societies on upper gastrointestinal bleeding highlight the important clinical issues but do not always identify specific management strategies pertaining to individual patients. Optimal treatment should consider the personal needs of an individual patient and the pertinent resources and experience available at the point of care. This article integrates international guidelines and consensus into three stages of management: pre-endoscopic assessment and treatment, endoscopic evaluation and haemostasis and postendoscopic management. We emphasise the need for personalised management strategies based on patient characteristics, nature of bleeding lesions and the clinical setting including available resources.

ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Existing scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.

DESIGN AND SETTING

International cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score's performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESULTS

We included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81-84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65-0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4-7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.

Prophylactic transcatheter angiographic embolization reduces Forrest IIa ulcer rebleeding: A retrospective study

The application of transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is controversial in the treatment of ulcer bleeding. This study aims to determine rebleeding risk factors and evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic TAE (p-TAE) following endoscopic hemostasis in rebleeding prevention of Forrest lla ulcers.The medical records of Forrest lla ulcer patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis (E group) and endoscopic hemostasis plus p-TAE (E + p-TAE group) in West China Hospital from May 2009 to May 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics, clinical efficacy, and rebleeding risk factors were analyzed.As a result, a total of 102 patients were included, with 75 and 27 patients in E and E + p-TAE group, respectively. Most of the baseline data in E and E + p-TAE group were similar except for the proportion of protruded non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV) (E group vs E + p-TAE group, 50.7% vs 74.1%, P = .035). The rebleeding rate of E + p-TAE group (3.7%) was significantly lower than E group (24.0%) (P = .02). The protruded NBVV (OR: 6.896, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.532-30.642, P = .01) and employment of p-TAE (OR: 0.038, 95% CI: 0.003-0.448, P = .009) were identified as independent risk factors for Forrest IIa ulcer rebleeding. Additionally, log-rank test indicated the rebleeding occurrence was greatly reduced by p-TAE in patients with protruded NBVVs (P = .006).In conclusion, the protruded NBVV and employment of p-TAE were the independent risk factors tightly associated with rebleeding of Forrest IIa ulcer. P-TAE following endoscopic hemostasis could effectively prevent Forrest IIa ulcer from rebleeding.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Bleeding Duodenal Ulcer: Strategies in High-Risk Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Acute peptic ulcer bleeding is still a major reason for hospital admission. Especially the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers needs a structured therapeutic approach due to the higher morbidity and mortality compared to gastric ulcers. Patient with these bleeding ulcers are often in a high-risk situation, which requires multidisciplinary treatment.

SUMMARY

This review provides a structured approach to modern management of bleeding duodenal ulcers and elucidates therapeutic practice in high-risk situations. Initial management including pharmacologic therapy, risk stratification, endoscopy, surgery, and transcatheter arterial embolization are reviewed and their role in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers is critically discussed. Additionally, a future perspective regarding prophylactic therapeutic approaches is outlined.

KEY MESSAGES

Beside pharmacotherapeutic and endoscopic advances, bleeding management of high-risk duodenal ulcers is still a challenge. When bleeding persists or rebleeding occurs and the gold standard endoscopy fails, surgical and radiological procedures are indicated to manage ulcer bleeding. Surgical procedures are performed to control hemorrhage, but they are still associated with a higher morbidity and a longer hospital stay. In the meantime, transcatheter arterial embolization is recommended as an alternative to surgery and more often replaces surgery in the management of failed endoscopic hemostasis. Future studies are needed to improve risk stratification and therefore enable a better selection of high-risk ulcers and optimal treatment. Additionally, the promising approach of prophylactic embolization in high-risk duodenal ulcers has to be further investigated to reduce rebleeding and improve outcomes in these patients.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Transarterial Embolization for High-Risk Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

The present systematic review determined the role of transarterial embolization (TAE) as a prophylactic treatment in bleeding peptic ulcers after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched from inception until July 2019 for studies that included patients deemed high-risk based on Forrest Classification, Rockall score ≥ 5, or endoscopic evaluation in addition to those who underwent prophylactic TAE after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. Meta-analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent endoscopic therapy (ET) and TAE with those who underwent ET alone. The primary outcomes measured included rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures evaluated length of hospitalization, technical success rates, and complications associated with TAE. Of 916 publications, 5 were eligible for inclusion; 310 patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding underwent prophylactic TAE, and 255 were compared against a control group of 580 patients that underwent standard treatment with ET alone. Patients who underwent ET with TAE had lower 30-day rebleeding rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.85; P = .02; I² = 50%). The ET with TAE group had a lower 30-day mortality rate (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.83; P = .02; I² = 58%). There was no difference in pooled reintervention rates (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08; P = .10; I² = 0%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.32; 95% CI, -1.88 to 1.24; P = .69; I² = 0%). Technical success rate of prophylactic TAE was 90.5% (95% CI, 83.09-97.98; I² = 75.9%). Pooled proportion of overall complication rate was 0.18% (95% CI, 0.00-1.28; I² = 0%). Prophylactic TAE has lower rebleeding and mortality with a good success rate and low complications. Prophylactic TAE after primary ET may be recommended for selected patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers; however, further studies should be performed to establish this as a routine tool in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

Background

Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment.

Methods

The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached.

Conclusions

The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

Endoscopic hemostasis followed by preventive transarterial embolization in high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: 5-year experience

Background

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to peptic ulcer disease is one of the leading causes of death in patients with non-variceal bleeding, resulting in up to 10% mortality rate, and the patient group at high risk of rebleeding (Forrest IA, IB, and IIA) often requires additional therapy after endoscopic hemostasis. Preventive transarterial embolization (P-TAE) after endoscopic hemostasis was introduced in our institution in 2014. The aim of the study is an assessment of the intermediate results of P-TAE following primary endoscopic hemostasis in patients with serious comorbid conditions and high risk of rebleeding.

Methods

During the period from 2014 to 2018, a total of 399 patients referred to our institution with a bleeding peptic ulcer, classified as type Forrest IA, IB, or IIA with the Rockall score ≥ 5, after endoscopic hemostasis was prospectively included in two groups—P-TAE group and control group, where endoscopy alone (EA) was performed. The P-TAE patients underwent flow-reducing left gastric artery or gastroduodenal artery embolization according to the ulcer type. The rebleeding rate, complications, frequency of surgical interventions, transfused packed red blood cells (PRBC), amount of fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and mortality rate were analyzed.

Results

From 738 patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer, 399 were at high risk for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis. From this cohort, 58 patients underwent P-TAE, and 341 were allocated to the EA. A significantly lower rebleeding rate was observed in the P-TAE group, 3.4% vs. 16.2% in the EA group; p = 0.005. The need for surgical intervention reached 10.3% vs. 20.6% in the P-TAE and EA groups accordingly; p = 0.065. Patients that underwent P-TAE required less FFP, 1.3 unit vs. 2.6 units in EA; p = 0.0001. The mortality rate was similar in groups with a tendency to decrease in the P-TAE group, 5.7% vs. 8.5% in EA; p = 0.417.

Conclusion

P-TAE is a feasible and safe procedure, and it may reduce the rebleeding rate and the need for surgical intervention in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer when the rebleeding risk remains high after primary endoscopic hemostasis.

Endoscopic Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Recent Advances

Bleeding peptic ulcers remained as one of the commonest causes of hospitalization worldwide. While endoscopic hemostasis serves as primary treatment for bleeding ulcers, rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis becomes more and more difficult to manage as patients are usually poor surgical candidates with multiple comorbidities. Recent advances in management of bleeding peptic ulcers aimed to further reduce the rate of rebleeding through-(1) identification of high risk patients for rebleeding and mortality; (2) improvement in primary endoscopic hemostasis and; (3) prophylactic angiographic embolization of major arteries. The technique and clinical evidences for these approaches will be reviewed in the current article.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Injection plus mechanical or thermal therapy continues to be the most widely used option. New endoscopic devices such as the use of an inert powder or a new class of over-the-scope clip system have demonstrated encouraging results as a rescue therapy for difficult hemostasis. Emerging data suggest that Doppler ultrasound-guided endoscopic therapy may improve the outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding. This review sumarizes the recent advances in the management of NVUGIB. With increasing use of anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants, the management of NVUGIB in patients on anti-thrombotic therapy is also discussed.

When all else fails - Radiological management of severe gastrointestinal bleeding

Although most cases of acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) either spontaneously resolve or respond to medical management and endoscopic therapy, there are still a significant proportion of severe patients who require emergency angiography and endovascular treatment. Over the past three decades, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) has become the first-line therapy for the management of acute nonvariceal GIB that is refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Advances in catheter-based techniques and newer liquid embolic agents, as well as recognition of the effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment options, have expanded the role of interventional radiology in the treatment of bleeding for a variety of indications. TAE is a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to surgery, when endoscopic treatment fails to control acute bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract. In this article we review the current role of angiography and TAE in the management of acute nonvariceal GIB.

Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency, with a reported mortality of 2-10%. Patients identified as being at very low risk of either needing an intervention or death can be managed as outpatients. For all other patients, intravenous fluids as needed for resuscitation and red cell transfusion at a hemoglobin threshold of 70-80 g/L are recommended. After resuscitation is initiated, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the prokinetic agent erythromycin may be administered, with antibiotics and vasoactive drugs recommended in patients who have cirrhosis. Endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 hours, with earlier endoscopy considered after resuscitation in patients at high risk, such as those with hemodynamic instability. Endoscopic treatment is used for variceal bleeding (for example, ligation for esophageal varices and tissue glue for gastric varices) and for high risk non-variceal bleeding (for example, injection, thermal probes, or clips for lesions with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel). Patients who require endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding should receive high dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopy, whereas those who have variceal bleeding should continue taking antibiotics and vasoactive drugs. Recurrent ulcer bleeding is treated with repeat endoscopic therapy, with subsequent bleeding managed by interventional radiology or surgery. Recurrent variceal bleeding is generally treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. In patients who require antithrombotic agents, outcomes appear to be better when these drugs are reintroduced early.

Advances in the Therapy of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important medical emergency. Important recent advances are reviewed. These include further support for a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70-90 g/L. The Glasgow-Blatchford score remains the most useful assessment score for identifying the lowest risk patients suitable for outpatient management and predicting the need for intervention. Newer scores such as the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestive score (PNED) may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin improves outcomes and is underused. A new disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Over-the-scope clips and haemostatic powders appear to have some role as endoscopic salvage therapies. Non- H. pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers contribute to an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.