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

Hemospray® (hemostatic powder TC-325) as monotherapy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter prospective study

Background

Hemostatic powders are used as second-line treatment in acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (AGIB). Increasing evidence supports the use of TC-325 as monotherapy in specific scenarios. This prospective, multicenter study evaluated the performance of TC-325 as monotherapy for AGIB.

Methods

Eighteen centers across Europe and USA contributed to a registry between 2016 and 2022. Adults with AGIB were eligible, unless TC-325 was part of combined hemostasis. The primary endpoint was immediate hemostasis. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding and mortality. Associations with risk factors were investigated (statistical significance at P≤0.05).

Results

One hundred ninety patients were included (age 51-81 years, male: female 2:1), with peptic ulcer (n=48), upper GI malignancy (n=79), post-endoscopic treatment hemorrhage (n=37), and lower GI lesions (n=26). The primary outcome was recorded in 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.6-98.5) with rebleeding in 17.4% (95%CI 11.9-24.1); 9.9% (95%CI 5.8-15.6) died within 7 days, and 21.7% (95%CI 15.6-28.9) within 30 days. Regarding peptic ulcer, immediate hemostasis was achieved in 88% (95%CI 75-95), while 26% (95%CI 13-43) rebled. Higher ASA score was associated with mortality (OR 23.5, 95%CI 1.60-345; P=0.02). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of cases with malignancy and post-intervention bleeding, with rebleeding in 17% and 3.1%, respectively. Twenty-six patients received TC-325 for lower GI bleeding, and in all but one the primary outcome was achieved.

Conclusions

TC-325 monotherapy is safe and effective, especially in malignancy or post-endoscopic intervention bleeding. In patients with peptic ulcer, it could be helpful when the primary treatment is unfeasible, as bridge to definite therapy.

Endoscopic Diagnosis, Grading, and Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a major cause for hospital admissions and has a significant mortality. Endoscopic interventions reduce the risk of rebleeding in high-risk patients and several options are available including injection therapies, thermal therapies, mechanical clips, hemostatic sprays, and endoscopic suturing. Proton-pump inhibitors and Helicobacter pylori treatment are important adjuncts to endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic therapy is indicated in Forrest 1a, 1b, and 2a lesions. Patients with Forrest 2b lesions may do well with proton-pump inhibitor therapy alone but can also be managed by removal of the clot and targeting endoscopic therapy to the underlying lesion.

Endoscopic management of postoperative bleeding

Postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding is a rare but serious complication that can lead to prolonged hospitalization and significant morbidity and mortality. It can be managed by reoperation, endoscopy, or radiological intervention. Although reoperation carries risks, particularly in critically ill postoperative patients, minimally invasive interventions, such as endoscopy or radiological intervention, confer advantages. Endoscopy allows localization of the bleeding focus and hemostatic management at the same time. Although there have been concerns regarding the potential risk of creating an anastomotic disruption or perforation during early postoperative endoscopy, endoscopic management has become more popular over time. However, there is currently no consensus on the best endoscopic management for postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding because most practices are based on retrospective case series. Furthermore, there is a wide range of individual complexities in anatomical and clinical settings after surgery. This review focused on the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic management in various surgical settings.

Epinephrine injection monotherapy shows similar hemostatic efficacy to epinephrine injection combined therapy in high-risk patients (Forrest Ib) with bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Whether combination therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy in different Forrest classifications is not clear. This study aimed to compare hemostatic efficacy between epinephrine injection monotherapy (MT) and combination therapy (CT) based on different Forrest classifications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients who underwent endoscopic epinephrine injections or epinephrine injections combined with a second therapy between March 2014 and June 2022 in our center, and the patients were divided into MT group or CT group. Subsequently, a propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was performed and rebleeding rates were calculated according to Forrest classifications via a stratified analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 605 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included, and after PSM, 173 patients in each of the CT and MT groups were included. For PUB patients with nonbleeding visible vessels (FIIa), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 8.8%, 17.5%, 19.3%, and 19.3% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 0%, 4.1%, 5.5%, and 5.5% in the CT group, respectively, with significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.015, P = 0.011, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). However, for PUB patients with oozing bleeding (FIb), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 14.9%, 16.2%, 17.6%, and 17.6% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 13.2%, 14.7%, 14.7%, and 16.2% in the CT group, respectively, with no significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.78, P = 0.804, P = 0.644 and P = 0.825).

CONCLUSION

Combined therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy for PUB patients with visible blood vessel (FIIa) ulcers. However, epinephrine injection monotherapy is equally as effective as combined therapy for PUB patients with oozing blood (FIb) ulcers.

Nomogram for predicting rebleeding after initial endoscopic epinephrine injection monotherapy hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Although the current guidelines recommend endoscopic combination therapy, endoscopic epinephrine injection (EI) monotherapy is still a simple, common and effective modality for treating peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). However, the rebleeding risk after EI monotherapy is still high, and identifying rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy is unclear, which is highly important in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify risk factors and constructed a predictive nomogram related to rebleeding after EI monotherapy.

Methods

We consecutively and retrospectively analyzed 360 PUB patients who underwent EI monotherapy between March 2014 and July 2021 in our center. Then we identified independent risk factors associated with rebleeding after initial endoscopic EI monotherapy by multivariate logistic regression. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated based on the above predictors.

Results

Among all PUB patients enrolled, 51 (14.2%) had recurrent hemorrhage within 30 days after endoscopic EI monotherapy. After multivariate logistic regression, shock [odds ratio (OR) = 12.691, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.129–31.399, p < 0.001], Rockall score (OR = 1.877, 95% CI 1.250–2.820, p = 0.002), tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) (OR = 2.610, 95% CI 1.098–6.203, p = 0.030), prolonged prothrombin time (PT > 13 s) (OR = 2.387, 95% CI 1.019–5.588, p = 0.045) and gastric ulcer (OR = 2.258, 95% CI 1.003–5.084, p = 0.049) were associated with an increased risk of rebleeding after an initial EI monotherapy treatment. A nomogram incorporating these independent high-risk factors showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.876 (95% CI 0.817–0.934) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We developed a predictive nomogram of rebleeding after EI monotherapy, which had excellent prediction accuracy. This predictive nomogram can be conveniently used to identify low-risk rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy, allowing for decision-making in a clinical setting.

Cross-roads for meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of H. pylori therapy

Helicobacter pylori infections are responsible for tremendous morbidity and mortality worldwide, leading to efforts to eradicate the organism. However, the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy has been undermined by the progressive development of antimicrobial resistance. Treatments and treatment guidelines have been based on traditional pairwise meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. More recently, network meta-analyses have also been used in an attempt to provide useful information to the clinician regarding which therapies appear best and which to avoid as the least efficacious. However, both forms of meta-analysis have been undermined by the same problems including the poor quality of the clinical trials using unoptimised regimens and incomparable comparisons related to marked geographic and ethnic genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity. In addition, the comparator regimens often consist of invalid strawman comparisons. New approaches concerning H. pylori treatment and analysis of therapies are needed. H. pylori therapies should be based on antimicrobial stewardship, as in other infectious diseases. This approach requires the use of only optimised therapies proven to be reliably highly effective in the local population (eg, a cure rate of >90%) for both the study and the comparator regimens. Meta-analyses should be restricted to regimens that meet these criteria and must take into account the presence of marked geographical and host genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity. In addition, to provide clinically relevant results, treatment outcomes should focus on, and present, actual cure rates in addition to odd ratios.

The safety and efficacy of different endovascular treatments for in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal artery: A network meta-analysis

Purpose: Femoropopliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging treatment. We performed a network meta-analysis (NWM) for femoropopliteal artery ISR to explore the safety and efficacy of endovascular therapeutic strategies. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were used as data sources. The network meta-analysis (NWM) approach used random-effects models based on the frequentist framework. We compared technical success rate, primary patency, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major amputation at the 12-month follow-up for femoropopliteal artery ISR. Results: In total, 14 eligible studies (10 prospective and four retrospective; 1348 patients; and eight treatment modalities - standard balloon angioplasty (SBA), drug-coated balloon (DCB), peripheral cutting balloon angioplasty (PCBA), Viabahn endoprosthesis (VBE), directional atherectomy (DA), excimer laser atherectomy (ELA), and combinations - were included. The primary patency rates (at 6 months) were significantly higher for DCB and ELA+DCB than for SBA and ELA+SBA. ELA+DCB had higher primary patency rates (at 12 months) than ELA+SBA and SBA. The technical success rates were significantly lower for DCB and SBA than for VBE. The major amputation rates were significantly lower for ELA+DCB than for DCB. Based on the surface values under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), ELA+DCB was considered the best treatment in terms of primary patency at 6 months (SUCRA = 91.1), primary patency at 12 months (SUCRA = 82.3), and TLR (SUCRA = 83.4). Conclusion: ELA+DCB showed positive encouraging results in primary patency (6, 12 months), TLR, and major amputation in femoropopliteal ISR. The efficacy and safety of ELA+DCB are worthy of further investigation. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021246674).

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common type of upper gastrointestinal emergency with high risk of life-threatening conditions. Nowadays some standard guidelines for the treatments of NVUGIB have been established based on endoscopic therapies, including injection of glues or sclerosing agents, coiling, band ligation, and thermal therapies. Nevertheless, some patients are refractory to standard endoscopic treatments. We have noticed that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments have been performed by some endoscopists in certain conditions. This review aims to evaluate the role of EUS-guided treatments in the management of NVUGIB. We performed a MEDLINE/PubMed search, and relevant studies were extracted and examined. According to the existing literature, the most common lesions were Dieulafoy's lesion, pancreatic pseudoaneurysms, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. EUS-guided treatments mainly include injection, mechanical therapies, and combined therapies, and seem to be a promising technique in the management of NVUGIB, especially for refractory bleeding.

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.

Current status and future challenges in the endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children

PURPOSE

This study aimed to elucidate the characteristics of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) in children and the outcomes of endoscopic hemostasis (EH) performed by pediatric surgeons.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of pediatric patients with NVUGIB who had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at our hospital, between December 2006 and March 2020.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included. The most common endoscopic diagnosis was gastritis (28%), followed by gastric ulcer (25%) and duodenal ulcer (25%). Thirty patients (83%) had underlying diseases, including a recent viral infection (39%), followed by Helicobacter pylori infection (14%). Fourteen patients (39%) underwent EH, exhibiting a high initial rate of hemostasis (100%). This was achieved in 12/14 patients by clipping. One patient was treated using a combination of a hypersaline and epinephrine (HSE) injection and coagulation therapy, as the ulcer exceeded the width of the hemoclips. Rebleeding occurred in one patient (7.1%) initially treated with pure ethanol injections. The partial view of the pediatric duodenum prevented the placement of hemoclips; hence, the patient was treated using a combination of HSE and coagulation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Clipping, injection, and/or coagulation therapy can lead to high success rates for hemostasis, considering the anatomical characteristics in a pediatric population.

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.

Outcomes from an international multicenter registry of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment with Hemospray

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding carries poor outcomes unless prompt endoscopic hemostasis is achieved. Mortality in these patients remains significant. Hemospray is a novel intervention that creates a mechanical barrier over bleeding sites. We report the largest dataset of patient outcomes after treatment with Hemospray from an international multicenter registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective data (Jan 2016-May 2018) from 12 centers across Europe were collected. Immediate hemostasis was defined as endoscopic cessation of bleeding within 5 min after application of Hemospray. Rebleeding was defined as subsequent drop in hemoglobin, hematemesis, persistent melena with hemodynamic compromise post-therapy.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fourteen cases were recruited worldwide (231 males, 83 females). Median pretreatment Blatchford score was 11 (IQR: 8-14) and median complete Rockall score (RS) was 7 (IQR: 6-8) for all patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was the most common pathology (167/314 = 53%) and Forrest Ib the most common bleed type in PUD (100/167 = 60%). 281 patients (89.5%) achieved immediate hemostasis after successful endoscopic therapy with Hemospray. Rebleeding occurred in 29 (10.3%) of the 281 patients who achieved immediate hemostasis. Seven-day and 30-day all-cause mortality were 11.5% (36/314) and 20.1% (63/314), respectively (lower than the predicted rates as per the RS). Similar hemostasis rates were noted in the Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%) and rescue therapy (85.5%) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show high rates of immediate hemostasis overall and in all subgroups. Rebleeding and mortality rates were in keeping/lower than predicted rates.

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.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a guide for nurses

This article outlines latest evidence-based care for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. It aims to help gastroenterology and general medical ward nurses plan nursing interventions and understand the diagnostic treatment options available. Acute upper GI bleeding can present as variceal or non-variceal bleeding and has a high death rate. Endoscopy is used for diagnosis and to provide therapy, prior to which the patient should be adequately resuscitated and assessed. Various therapies can be initiated at endoscopy, depending on the source of bleeding. If bleeding continues in spite of these therapies, further interventions such as the Sengstaken tube, oesophageal stents, radiological or surgical treatments may be required. After endoscopy, it is important to have a plan for ongoing treatment. Patients may require acid suppression treatment or eradication of Helicobacter pylori as part of their treatment plan. They may in additional require correction of their haemoglobin levels and follow-up endoscopy. It is essential that nurses caring for such patients are aware of the current UK guidance and help patients to adhere to agreed treatment plans.

Advances in management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review new advances in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of various scoring systems in combination with video capsule endoscopy assists in stratifying and managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. New techniques such as thermocoagulation and hemoclips are useful to treat bleeding.

SUMMARY

The advancement of methods and procedures in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has decreased mortality of patients presenting with this type of hemorrhage. In this chapter, we will be discussing various scores to stratify nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and techniques to stop bleeding.