Endoscopic band ligation compared to thermal therapy for gastric antral vascular ectasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Iron Deficiency Anemia: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we will Best Practice Advice (BPA) guidance on the appropriate management of iron deficiency anemia.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) 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 CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: No single formulation of oral iron has any advantages over any other. Ferrous sulfate is preferred as the least expensive iron formulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Give oral iron once a day at most. Every-other-day iron dosing may be better tolerated for some patients with similar or equal rates of iron absorption as daily dosing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Add vitamin C to oral iron supplementation to improve absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Intravenous iron should be used if the patient does not tolerate oral iron, ferritin levels do not improve with a trial of oral iron, or the patient has a condition in which oral iron is not likely to be absorbed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Intravenous iron formulations that can replace iron deficits with 1 or 2 infusions are preferred over those that require more than 2 infusions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: All intravenous iron formulations have similar risks; true anaphylaxis is very rare. The vast majority of reactions to intravenous iron are complement activation-related pseudo-allergy (infusion reactions) and should be treated as such. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Intravenous iron therapy should be used in individuals who have undergone bariatric procedures, particularly those that are likely to disrupt normal duodenal iron absorption, and have iron-deficiency anemia with no identifiable source of chronic gastrointestinal blood loss. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and iron-deficiency anemia, clinicians first should determine whether iron-deficiency anemia is owing to inadequate intake or absorption, or loss of iron, typically from gastrointestinal bleeding. Active inflammation should be treated effectively to enhance iron absorption or reduce iron depletion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Intravenous iron therapy should be given in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease, iron-deficiency anemia, and active inflammation with compromised absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia, oral iron supplements initially should be used to replenish iron stores. Intravenous iron therapy should be used in patients with ongoing bleeding who do not respond to oral iron therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia without another identified source of chronic blood loss, treatment of portal hypertension with nonselective β-blockers can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In individuals with iron-deficiency anemia secondary to gastric antral vascular ectasia who have an inadequate response to iron replacement, consider endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation or thermal methods such as argon plasma coagulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with iron-deficiency anemia and celiac disease, ensure adherence to a gluten-free diet to improve iron absorption. Consider oral iron supplementation based on the severity of iron deficiency and patient tolerance, followed by intravenous iron therapy if iron stores do not improve. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Deep enteroscopy performed in patients with iron-deficiency anemia suspected to have small-bowel bleeding angioectasias should be performed with a distal attachment to improve detection and facilitate treatment. Small-bowel angioectasias may be treated with ablative thermal therapies such as argon plasma coagulation or with mechanical methods such as hemostatic clips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Endoscopic treatment of angioectasias should be accompanied with iron replacement. Medical therapy for small-bowel angioectasias should be reserved for compassionate treatment in refractory cases when iron replacement and endoscopic therapy are ineffective.

Recurrent gastric antral vascular ectasia: a single center experience

Introduction

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is a rare cause of chronic or acute gastrointestinal bleeding. This condition accounts for ∼4% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. This disease is often associated with systemic diseases, such as liver cirrhosis, chronic kidney failure, autoimmune conditions, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and cardiovascular diseases. However, its etiopathogenesis remains controversial.

Materials and method

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of GAVE treated at our digestive surgery unit. A total of nine patients were identified with a male/female ratio of 1.25:1 and an average age of 75.51 years (SD ± 9.85). All patients underwent endoscopic argon plasma coagulation (APC) treatment. At the time of the review, data on eight patients were available after 36 months of follow-up.

Results

APC appears to be safe and effective for hemostasis of bleeding vascular ectasia. Only one (11.1%) patient required surgical intervention due to hemodynamic instability after multiple unsuccessful endoscopic treatments. No intraoperative and postoperative complication or bleeding relapse was experienced.

Discussion

Based on our findings, we concluded that endoscopic APC is technically simple, but requires multiple re-interventions due to the incidence of relapses. Furthermore, larger randomized studies should be conducted to assess the role of elective surgery as the first intervention in stable patients with severe pathology and the timing of surgery after failed endoscopic treatment.

Comparisons Between Endoscopic Band Ligation, Radiofrequency Ablation and Endoscopic Thermal Therapy for Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have emerged as alternative therapies of gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) in addition to endoscopic thermal therapy (ETT), but the optimum choice remains inconclusive.

AIM

We conducted a meta-analysis in order to compare these three treatments for GAVE.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without any language restrictions and also performed a manual literature search of bibliographies located in both retrieved articles and published reviews for eligible publications prior to December 8, 2021. We included comparative trials which had evaluated the efficacy and safety of interventions in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with symptomatic GAVE and was confirmed according to clinical backgrounds and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. We included reports that compared three interventions, ETT, EBL, and RFA. The study was comprised of adults diagnosed with GAVE and focused on overall mortality, bleeding cessation, endoscopic improvement, complications, hospitalization, hemoglobin improvement, number of sessions and transfusion requirements.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were performed involving a total of 571 participants for analysis. When compared with ETT, EBL achieved better bleeding cessation (OR 4.48, 95% CI 1.36-14.77, p = 0.01), higher hemoglobin improvement (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-0.83, p < 0.01) and lower number of sessions (MD - 1.44, 95% CI - 2.54 to - 0.34, p = 0.01). Additionally, EBL was superior to ETT in endoscopic improvement (OR 6.00, 95% CI 2.26-15.97, p < 0.01), hospitalization (MD - 1.32, 95% CI - 1.91 to - 0.74, p < 0.01) and transfusion requirement (MD - 2.66, 95% CI - 4.67 to - 0.65, p = 0.01) with statistical significance, with the exception of mortality (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19-1.77, p = 0.34) and complication rate (OR 5.33, 95% CI 0.58-48.84, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

For GAVE, we suggest that EBL be initially recommended, and APC and RFA be used as alternative treatment choices based upon a very low quality of evidence.

Endoscopic Advances in Hepatology

Endoscopy is and remains an indispensable tool in diagnosing and managing liver disease and its complications. Due to the progress in advanced endoscopy, endoscopy has become an alternative route for many surgical, percutaneous, and angiographic interventions, not only as a backup tool when conventional interventions fail but increasingly as a first-line choice. The term endo-hepatology refers to the integration of advanced endoscopy in the practice of hepatology. Endoscopy is key in the diagnosis and management of esophageal and gastric varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and gastric antral vascular ectasia. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can be used for the evaluation of the liver parenchyma, liver lesions, and surrounding tissues and vessels, including targeted biopsy and complemented with new software functions. Moreover, EUS can guide portal pressure gradient measurement, and assess and help manage complications of portal hypertension. It is crucial that each present-day hepatologist is aware of the (rapidly increasing) full spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic tools that exist within this field. In this comprehensive review, we would like to discuss the current endo-hepatology spectrum, as well as future directions for endoscopy in hepatology.

To coagulate, ligate, or both: a randomized study comparing the safety and efficacy of two endoscopic approaches for managing gastric antral vascular ectasia in cirrhotic patients

Background

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is an uncommon but important cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the standard therapy for GAVE. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is an emerging, safe and effective treatment for GAVE. The best way of applying EBL in the management of GAVE is not clear yet.

Aim

We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of APC alternating with EBL versus EBL alone for managing GAVE in cirrhotic patients.

Patients and methods

Forty cirrhotic patients with bleeding GAVE were randomized to receive either APC alternating with EBL (20 patients) or EBL alone (20 patients) until GAVE lesions are eradicated. Gastroscopy was done 6 months after eradication of GAVE lesions to document recurrence. Cessation of bleeding, rise of hemoglobin level, need for transfusion, hospitalization, complications, number of sessions, and recurrence of GAVE in both groups were statistically analyzed.

Results

Patients in both groups showed significantly high rate of bleeding cessation, improvement in hemoglobin levels, reduction in transfusions, and hospitalizations. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the recurrence of GAVE between the two groups. There were no complications seen in the combined therapy group. Twenty percent of the patients in the EBL group had complications including hypertrophied polyp formation and post-band ulcerations.

Conclusion

APC alternating with EBL and EBL alone are effective methods in the treatment of bleeding GAVE. Combined therapy has the potential to decrease the number of banding sessions and the number of rubber bands required to treat GAVE, consequently decreasing the incidence of band-related complications.

Comparison of high and low-dose epinephrine & endoclip application in peptic ulcer bleeding: A case series analysis observational study

Peptic ulcer disease accounts for 50% to 70% of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. There is no consensus on the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) using endoscopic techniques. This study aimed to compare endoscopic techniques for PUB.Patients with PUB who were hospitalized between January 2014 and June 2020 were included in this study. They were divided into 3 groups: endoclip and low-dose epinephrine injection (0-2 mg, Group 1, n = 62), endoclip and high-dose epinephrine injection (2-4 mg, Group 2, n = 54), and endoclip only (Group 3, n = 64).Early bleeding and permanent hemostasis were higher in Group 2 (P = .014, .035). When evaluated in terms of late hemostasis and urgent surgical need, there was no significant difference between the groups (P > .05). Group 2 received a higher amount of blood. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 16.5%, 22.2%, and 9.4% of patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 2 had a longer hospital stay than Groups 1 and 3 (P = .008). The endoscopic success rates were 80.6%, 72.2%, and 90.6% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively.In PUB, if the patient's Rockall score is high and the ulcer size is larger than 2 cm, endoclip application can be used as the main treatment. Addition of epinephrine may be considered when necessary.

Endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is one of the uncommon causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Major treatment of GAVE includes pharmacotherapy, endoscopy, and surgery. The efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy have not been sufficiently confirmed; and surgery is just considered when conservative treatment is ineffective. By comparison, endoscopy is a common treatment option for GAVE. This paper reviews the currently used endoscopic approaches for GAVE, mainly including argon plasma coagulation (APC), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and endoscopic band ligation (EBL). It also summarizes their efficacy and procedure-related adverse events. The endoscopic success rate of APC is 40-100%; however, APC needs several treatment sessions, with a high recurrence rate of 10-78.9%. The endoscopic success rates of RFA and EBL are 90-100% and 77.8-100%, respectively; and their recurrence rates are 21.4-33.3% and 8.3-48.1%, respectively. Hyperplastic gastric polyps and sepsis are major adverse events of APC and RFA; and Mallory-Weiss syndrome is occasionally observed after APC. Adverse events of EBL are rare and mild, such as nausea, vomiting, esophageal or abdominal pain, and hyperplastic polyps. APC is often considered as the first-line choice of endoscopic treatment for GAVE. RFA and EBL have been increasingly used as alternatives in patients with refractory GAVE. A high recurrence of GAVE after endoscopic treatment should be fully recognized and cautiously managed by follow-up endoscopy. In future, a head-to-head comparison of different endoscopic approaches for GAVE is warranted.

Endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of gastric antral vascular ectasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the first-line treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE), endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has shown promising results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of EBL for the treatment of GAVE. Methods  Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines through September 1, 2020. Measured outcomes included endoscopic success (defined as GAVE eradication/improvement), change in hemoglobin, transfusion dependency, number of treatment sessions, adverse events, rebleeding, and bleeding-associated mortality. Outcomes were compared among studies evaluating EBL versus APC. Results  Eleven studies (n = 393; 59.39 % female; mean age 58.65 ± 8.85 years) were included. Endoscopic success was achieved in 87.84 % [(95 % CI, 80.25 to 92.78); I ²  = 11.96 %] with a mean number of 2.50 ± 0.49 treatment sessions and average of 12.40 ± 3.82 bands applied. For 8 studies comparing EBL (n = 143) versus APC (n = 174), there was no difference in baseline patient characteristics. However, endoscopic success was significantly higher for EBL [OR 6.04 (95 % CI 1.97 to 18.56; P  = 0.002], requiring fewer treatment sessions (2.56 ± 0.81 versus 3.78 ± 1.17; P  < 0.001). EBL was also associated with a greater increase in post-procedure hemoglobin [mean difference 0.35 (95 % CI 0.07 to 0.62; P  = 0.0140], greater reduction in transfusions required [mean difference -1.46 (95 % CI -2.80 to -0.12; P  = 0.033], and fewer rebleeding events [OR 0.11 (95 % CI, 0.04 to 0.36); P  < 0.001]. There was no difference in adverse events or bleeding-associated mortality ( P  > 0.050). Conclusions  EBL appears to be safe and effective for treatment of GAVE, with improved outcomes when compared to APC.

Endoscopic Band Ligation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation in the Treatment of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Aims

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

Results

Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I²=0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I²=0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I²=96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I²=0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusions

EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.