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

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.

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.

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.

Spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope in the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Systematically assessing the safety and effectiveness of spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope for the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and confirmation for further clinical research and application.

METHODS

We searched the following databases up till November 2019: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were used to compare the curative effect of spraying rhubarb powder solution with other drugs under gastroscope for the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

Out of 171 articles, 14 RCTs involving 1493 patients were included. All control groups included in the RCTs were treated with norepinephrine solution. The hemostatic effect of spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope was examined for 24 h at high concentration (0.1 g/mL). The hemostatic effect at higher conc. (0.1 g/mL) found far more better than low conc.(RR = 1.48;95 %CI:1.25,1.75;P﹤0.00001) (0.03 g/mL)as homeostatic effect at low conc.is same that of norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.02;95 %CI:0.94,1.10;P = 0.62). Moreover within 48 h, rhubarb powder solution with 0.1 g/mL or 0.15 g/mL conc. have of significantly higher hemostatic effects than norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.18;95 % CI: 1.08, 1.30;P = 0.0003). Occurrence of rebleeding event within 48 h after successful hemostasis (RR = 0.42;95 %CI:0.24,0.74;P = 0.003) reduced exceptionally. After that the hemostatic effect of rhubarb powder solution with 0.1 g/mL conc.examined within 72 h again exhibited significant improvement than norepinephrine solution (RR = 1.19;95 %CI:1.12,1.26;P < 0.00001). On par with immediate hemostasis time, rhubarb powder solution took unprecedented less time than norepinephrine solution;(MD=-5.56S;95 %CI:-6.16, -4.95;P﹤0.00001). Additionally, the adverse reaction produced by rhubarb powder solution is much lower than norepinephrine solution (RR = 0.22;95 %CI:0.11,0.42;P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to meta-analysis, Spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope in the treatment of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding is superior to norepinephrine solution in improving hemostasis effect. Shortening immediate hemostasis time and reducing rebleeding,and is safe to use. Based on the results of this study, physicians can treat patients with acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding by spraying rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope according to the patients' condition.However, the sample size included in this study is small and of substandard quality qu, and a large sample size clinical trial with strict design and normative report is needed to verify the safety and efficacy of rhubarb powder solution under gastroscope for acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation (MHFSC) have been compared with hemoclips, heater probe, and argon plasma coagulation (APC) for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared MHFSC with other modalities in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. We reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to 7 January 2019 to identify studies comparing MHFSC with other modalities for peptic ulcer bleeding. The primary outcome of interest was achievement of initial hemostasis. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding, adverse events, procedure time, and length of hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model and summarized as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included five randomized controlled trials and one observational study comprising 693 patients with endoscopically confirmed actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) or nonbleeding visible vessel. MHFSC was superior to other modalities in achieving initial hemostasis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.81; I = 67%) and prevention of rebleeding (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09-0.86; I = 46%). Rates of adverse events were similar between MHFSC and other modalities. Procedure times were shorter with MHFSC (mean difference -4.15 min; 95% CI -4.83 to -3.47; I= 59%). Length of hospital stay was also shorter with MHFSC. MHFSC appears to be more effective than other modalities for achievement of initial hemostasis and reduction of rebleeding among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

Clinical outcomes of over-the-scope-clip system for the treatment of acute upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic treatments can't control bleeding in as many as 20% of patients with non-variceal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Recent studies have shown that over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) system allowed for effective hemostasis for refractory GI bleeding lesions. So we aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the OTSC system for management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library covering the period from January 2007 to May 2019. The literature was selected independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies including 769 patients with 778 GI bleeding lesions were identified. Pooled technical success was achieved in 761 lesions [95.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 93.5-97.2%], and the pooled clinical success was achieved in 666 lesions (84.2, 95% CI, 77.4-89.2%). The incidence of re-bleeding was reported in 81 patients and the post-procedure mortality was 10.9% (n = 84). Only 2 (0.3%) patients occurred complications after OTSC system procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the OTSC system was a technically feasible modality and highly efficacious in achieving hemostasis in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Devices for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal GI bleeding (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for GI nonvariceal bleeding. Although some of the devices and techniques used for this purpose have been well studied, others are relatively new, with few available outcomes data.

METHODS

In this document, we review devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding, the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety, and financial considerations for their use.

RESULTS

Devices used for endoscopic hemostasis in the GI tract can be classified into injection devices (needles), thermal devices (multipolar/bipolar probes, hemostatic forceps, heater probe, argon plasma coagulation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryotherapy), mechanical devices (clips, suturing devices, banding devices, stents), and topical devices (hemostatic sprays).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic evaluation and treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of nonvariceal upper- and lower-GI bleeding. A variety of devices is available for hemostasis of bleeding lesions in the GI tract. Other than injection therapy, which should not be used as monotherapy, there are few compelling data that strongly favor any one device over another. For endoscopists, the choice of a hemostatic device should depend on the type and location of the bleeding lesion, the availability of equipment and expertise, and the cost of the device.

Efficacy of Over-the-Scope Clips in Management of High-Risk Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Standard endoscopic therapies do not control bleeding or produce complications in as many as 20% of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Most bleeding comes from ulcers with characteristics such as high-risk vascular territories and/or large vessels. We evaluated the efficacy of using over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as primary or rescue therapy for patients with bleeding from lesions that have a high risk for adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 67 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding from high-risk lesions who were treated with OTSCs as primary (n = 49) or rescue therapy (n = 18) at a quaternary center, from December 2011 through February 2015. The definition of high-risk lesions was lesions that were situated in the area of a major artery and larger than 2 mm in diameter and/or a deep penetrating, excavated, fibrotic ulcer with high-risk stigmata, in which a perforation could not be ruled out or thermal therapy would cause perforation, or lesions that could not be treated by standard endoscopy. Clinical severity was determined based on the Rockall score and a modified Blatchford score. Our primary outcome was the incidence of rebleeding within 30 days after OTSC placement. We assessed risk factors for rebleeding using univariate hazard models followed by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 67 patients, 47 (70.1%) remained free of rebleeding at 30 days after OTSC placement. We found no difference in the proportion of patients with rebleeding who received primary or rescue therapy (hazard ratio, 0.639; 95% confidence interval, 0.084-4.860; P = .6653). Only 9 rebleeding events were linked clearly to OTSCs and required intervention, indicating an OTSC success rate of 81.3%. We found no significant associations between rebleeding and clinical scores. However, on multivariable analysis, patients with coronary artery disease had a higher risk of rebleeding after OTSC independent of international normalized ratio and antiplatelet use (hazard ratio, 7.30; P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of 67 patients with bleeding from high-risk gastrointestinal lesions, we found OTSCs to prevent rebleeding in more than 80% of cases. In the past, these lesions were treated with surgical or radiologic interventions. Patients with coronary artery disease have an increased risk of rebleeding after OTSCs, suggesting the need for escalated therapies.

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.

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.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

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.

Etiology and outcome of acute gastrointestinal bleeding in iran:a review article

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding that results from lesions located above the ligament of Treitz and is a common cause for emergency hospital admissions in patients with gastrointestinal disorders. UGIB also increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients already hospitalized for other reasons. According to epidemiological surveys of acute UGIB in Iran, peptic ulcer is the most common endoscopic diagnosis. Gastric and duodenal erosion accounts for 16.4%-25% of etiologies. Other relatively common causes of UGIB are variceal hemorrhage, Mallory-Weiss tears, and arterial and venous malformations. However, in 9%-13.3% of patients, the endoscopy is normal.