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

A Randomized Trial of Monopolar Soft-mode Coagulation Versus Heater Probe Thermocoagulation for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Thermal coagulation is one of the most commonly used methods, with a high success rate. Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric carcinoma was developed and hemostasis with soft coagulation using hemostatic forceps was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic efficacy of soft coagulation with heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients who visited our hospital with hematemesis or melena underwent emergency endoscopy. Inclusion criteria were presentation with an actively bleeding ulcer, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or an adherent clot. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to give written informed consent or had a bleeding gastric malignancy. Patients were randomized to receive endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group S) or heater probe thermocoagulation (Group H). The primary endpoint was the primary hemostasis rate and secondary endpoints were rebleeding rate, complications, and the procedure time.

RESULTS

Between May 2010 and February 2012, a total of 111 patients (89 gastric ulcers and 22 duodenal ulcers) were enrolled. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 54 patients (96%) in Group S and 37 (67%) in Group H (P<0.0001). Rebleeding occurred in 7 patients in Group H and none in Group S. Of these 7 patients, urgent surgery was performed in 1. Perforation occurred in 2 patients in Group H, which was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, soft coagulation using monopolar hemostatic forceps is more effective than heater probe thermocoagulation for achieving hemostasis.

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in operated stomach: Outcome of 105 cases

AIM: To compare the causes and clinical outcome of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGB) and a history of gastric surgery to those with AUGB but without a history of gastric surgery in the past.

METHODS: The causes and clinical outcome were compared between 105 patients with AUGB and a history of gastric surgery, and 608 patients with AUGB but without a history of gastric surgery.

RESULTS: Patients who underwent gastric surgery in the past were older (mean age: 68.1±11.7 years vs 62.8±17.8 years, P = 0.001), and the most common cause of bleeding was marginal ulcer in 63 patients (60%). No identifiable source of bleeding could be found in 22 patients (20.9%) compared to 42/608 (6.9%) in patients without a history of gastric surgery (P = 0.003). Endoscopic hemostasis was permanently successful in 26 out of 35 patients (74.3%) with peptic ulcers and active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel. Nine patients (8.6%) were operated due to continuing or recurrent bleeding, compared to 23/608 (3.8%) in the group of patients without gastric surgery in the past (P = 0.028). Especially in peptic ulcer bleeding patients, emergency surgery was more common in the group of patients with gastric surgery in the past [9/73 (12.3%) vs 19/360 (5.3%), P = 0.025]. Moreover surgically treated patients in the past required more blood transfusion (3.3±4.0 vs 1.5±1.7, P = 0.0001) and longer hospitalization time (8.6±4.0 vs 6.9±4.9 d, P = 0.001) than patients without a history of gastric surgery. Mortality was not different between the two groups [4/105 (3.8%) vs 19/608 (3.1%)].

CONCLUSION: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding seems to be more severe in surgically treated patients than in non-operated patients.

Predictors of hemostatic failure after adrenaline injection in patients with peptic ulcers with non-bleeding visible vessel

BACKGROUND

Non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV) in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer is associated with a high risk of rebleeding. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with failure of endoscopic hemostasis and rebleeding in patients with NBVV.

METHODS

Clinical and endoscopic parameters related to failure of endoscopic hemostasis with adrenaline in 191 bleeding peptic ulcer patients with NBVV were evaluated.

RESULTS

Endoscopic hemostasis was permanently successful in 154 patients (80.6%). Emergency surgical hemostasis for rebleeding was required in 37 patients (19.4%). Univariate analysis showed that therapeutic failure was significantly related to the presence of shock on admission (P=0.003), posterior duodenal ulcers (P=0.001), peptic ulcer history (P=0.001), previous peptic ulcer bleeding (P=0.002), or lack of history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs consumption, when compared to use of such drugs (P=0.04). Patients where therapy failed had lower hemoglobin levels at admission (7.8+/-1.9 g/dL versus 10+/-2.4 g/dL, P=0.005). In a multivariate analysis low hemoglobin (P<0.001) as well as history of previous peptic ulcer bleeding (P=0.002) and posterior duodenal ulcers (P=0.001) were negative predictors. Using the mean value of hemoglobin as the cut-off point, it is noteworthy that only 2 out of 81 patients (2.5%) who had none of these predictive factors required emergency surgical hemostasis, whereas 34 out of 110 patients (30.9%) with at least one predictive factor required emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

It is possible, by employing specific characteristics, to define a subgroup of high-risk patients for rebleeding in patients with NBVV despite therapeutic endoscopy and thus candidates for a complementary endoscopic method of hemostasis or emergency surgical intervention.

The effect of octreotide as an adjunct treatment in active nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

GOALS

The aim of this study was to determine the effect ofoctreotide on active or recent gastrointestinal bleeding from benign peptic ulcers.

STUDY

This is a prospective, randomized study including 110 patients with gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers presenting with active spurting or oozing bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessel. All patients were subjected to endoscopic hemostasis by injection of noradrenaline, and they were then randomized to either receive octreotide (55 patients) or placebo (55 patients). The groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, previous history of ulcer or bleeding, Helicobacter pylori infection, site, and severity of bleeding.

RESULTS

The rebleeding rate was 36% in placebo and 32% in octreotide group, which does not present a statistically significant difference. Surgical intervention was required for 18 patients (32.7%) in the placebo group and for 16 patients (29%) in the octreotide group. The mortality rate was 2 patients (3.6%) in the placebo and 4 patients (7.2%) in the octreotide group. All the above presented no statistical difference. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to the number of blood units transfused and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of octreotide as an adjunct treatment in patients with acutely bleeding benign peptic ulcer or/and visible vessel did not seem to offer significant benefits regarding their outcome.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

N/A

N/A

Endoclips versus heater probe in preventing early recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer: a prospective and randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic application of hemoclips (HC) was prospectively compared with heat probe (HP) treatment in patients with bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

One hundred thirteen patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage were randomly assigned to receive HP (n = 57) or HC (n = 56). Clinical and endoscopic features were comparable in both groups. Recurrent bleeding was retreated with the modality previously used. Patients in whom treatment or retreatment was unsuccessful underwent emergency surgery.

RESULTS

Hemostasis, adequate treatment of visible vessel, 30-day mortality, and emergency surgery rates were similar for both groups. Recurrent bleeding was 21% for HP and 1.8% for HC (p < 0.05). Length of hospital stay and transfusion requirements were significantly lower in the HC group. There was no evidence of clip-induced tissue injury or impaired ulcer healing. Clips dislodged spontaneously in most patients within 8 weeks of treatment. No further hemorrhage occurred on a median follow-up of 11 months (range 1-23).

CONCLUSIONS

The hemoclip is safe and effective in the treatment of severe ulcer bleeding and is superior to HP in preventing early recurrent bleeding.