Endoclips vs large or small-volume epinephrine in peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding

Turn over the new leaf of the treatment in peptic ulcer bleeding: a review of the literature

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which has a high mortality risk. The standard therapy for acute peptic ulcer bleeding combines medication administration and endoscopic therapies. Both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies have developed continuously in the past few decades. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) already reached a high efficacy in ulcer healing and have been widely used in the past few decades. Endoscopic hemostasis, which includes local epinephrine injection, heater probe coagulation, use of hemostatic clips, and/or band ligation, is highly effective with an overall hemostatic success rate of 85%-90%. However, 10%-20% of patients could not be cured by the current standard combination treatment. Recurrent ulcer bleeding, despite an initial successful hemostasis, is also a big problem for longer hospitalization stays, higher mortality, and higher complication rates, especially for malignant ulcer bleeding. How to manage all types of peptic ulcer bleeding and how to prevent early recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding remain unresolved clinical problems. Recently, several novel medications and endoscopic methods have been developed. Potassium competitive acid blockers have shown a stronger and longer acid suppression than PPI. Hemostatic powder spray and hemostatic gel emulsion are novel hemostatic weapons with emerging evidence, which are potential missing pieces of the puzzle. This literature review will go through the development of endoscopic hemostasis to the prospects of novel endoscopic treatments.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding]

GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs frequently in clinical practice. The presence of gastrointestinal bleeding usually is suspected by typical clinical history and results of clinical examination and laboratory findings. Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with high success rates over 90%. Different techniques for endoscopic hemostasis are available and for most indications, a combination of two modalities is recommended. Endoscopic management of recurrent or persistent bleeding is technically more challenging and associated with increased mortality (up to 10%, especially in patients with high age and comorbidities). In this situation, endoscopic hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip has shown to be superior to standard treatment for recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies also have shown superiority for first-line over-the-scope clip treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients. In this review, management of gastrointestinal bleeding is summarized based on current guidelines and current literature.

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.

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.

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.

Endoscopic treatment modalities and outcomes in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

In nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), the optimal volume of adrenaline, the optimal number of hemoclips, and the application of thermal coagulation in determining patient outcomes have not been well studied.

AIM

To demonstrate a dose-response relationship between the commonly used endoscopic modalities for the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and various clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients presenting with NVUGIB were retrospectively identified and analyzed. These patients were stratified as follows: (1) > 10 mL of adrenaline injected vs ≤ 10 mL; (2) > 1 hemoclip placed vs ≤ 1 hemoclip; (3) Heater probe used or not; and (4) > 2 treatment modalities used vs ≤ 2. The primary outcomes were rebleeding and the need for repeat endoscopy. The secondary outcomes were the need for surgery, required transfusions, length of hospital stay, death during the same admission period and 30 d mortality. Patients with NVUGIB who required endoscopic therapy were included. Those who did not require endoscopic therapy or were initially treated with surgery or embolization were excluded.

RESULTS

In all, 501 patients with NVUGIB were treated. One hundred sixty-one (32.1%) patients needed endoscopic therapy. The injection of < 10 mL of adrenaline was associated with less rebleeding (P < 0.0001), the need for repeat endoscopy (P = 0.001) and a decreased length of hospital stay (P = 0.026). The use of > 2 treatment modalities were associated with increased rebleeding (P = 0.009) and the need for repeat endoscopy (P = 0.048). The placement of > 1 hemoclip was associated with a decreased length of hospital stay (P = 0.044). The rates of surgery and death were low, and there were no other significant differences between the patient groups.

CONCLUSION

The more restrictive use of adrenaline and number of endoscopic modalities to treat NVUGIB with the more liberal use of hemoclips was associated with better patient outcomes.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Biomaterials in Gastroenterology: A Critical Overview

In spite of the large diversity of diagnostic and interventional devices associated with gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, there is little information on the impact of the biomaterials (metals, polymers) contained in these devices upon body tissues and, indirectly, upon the treatment outcomes. Other biomaterials for gastroenterology, such as adhesives and certain hemostatic agents, have been investigated to a greater extent, but the information is fragmentary. Much of this situation is due to the paucity of details disclosed by the manufacturers of the devices. Moreover, for most of the applications in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, there are no studies available on the biocompatibility of the device materials when in intimate contact with mucosae and other components of the GI tract. We have summarized the current situation with a focus on aspects of biomaterials and biocompatibility related to the device materials and other agents, with an emphasis on the GI endoscopic procedures. Procedures and devices used for the control of bleeding, for polypectomy, in bariatrics, and for stenting are discussed, particularly dwelling upon the biomaterial-related features of each application. There are indications that research is progressing steadily in this field, and the establishment of the subdiscipline of "gastroenterologic biomaterials" is not merely a remote projection. Upon the completion of this article, the gastroenterologist should be able to understand the nature of biomaterials and to achieve a suitable and beneficial perception of their significance in gastroenterology. Likewise, the biomaterialist should become aware of the specific tasks that the biomaterials must fulfil when placed within the GI tract, and regard such applications as both a challenge and an incentive for progressing the research in this field.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

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.

Successful endoscopic hemoclipping of massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding from paratyphoid A fever

Paratyphoid fever can be complicated by massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding with ileocolonic ulcerations, which are commonly localized using colonoscopy. The most common manifestations include multiple, variable-sized, round or oval-shaped, punched-out ulcers. Occasionally, massive lower gastrointestinal bleeding can occur from erosion of blood vessels. We present a rare case of severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding due to paratyphoid A fever that was successfully controlled with hemoclippings. A 30-year-old man experienced high fever and hematochezia whose blood culture showed Salmonella paratyphi A. A complete colonoscopy was successfully performed up to the level of the terminal ileum, which showed multiple, shallow, ulcerated lesions over the entire terminal ileum. A bleeding vessel was seen in one of the ulcers, with overlaying blood clots. Endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed with four pieces of endoclip and without immediate complication. This report highlights the use of colonoscopy and endoscopic therapy with endoclips for lower gastrointestinal bleeding, which should be considered before surgery.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most common medical emergencies. It is important to recognize potential etiologies of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and understand therapeutic modalities available in achieving hemostasis. This article summarizes guidelines in management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reviews recent advances in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent study showed that patients who received blood transfusion with threshold hemoglobin below 7 g/dl rather than below 9 g/dl had significantly lower mortality at 45 days. Endoscopic therapy should be performed on actively bleeding ulcers and ulcers with visible vessel or adherent clot. An over-the-scope clip is a novel device that can be used to achieve hemostasis. It may be a useful tool for achieving hemostasis for patients who failed endoscopic therapy with epinephrine injection, clip, or thermal therapy. Doppler ultrasound probe can evaluate arterial flow to the ulcer and identify ulcers that are at high risk of rebleeding.

SUMMARY

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is not a new clinical problem. Yet, the approach to management continues to evolve with the accumulation of data and well designed studies on the subject.

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.

A new hemostatic clip for endoscopic surgery that can maintain blood flow after clipping

AIM: To develop a new hemostatic device for endoscopic surgery that can control the bleeding without completely occluding the bleeding vessel.

METHODS: A hemostatic clip and its applier that can stanch bleeding while maintaining blood flow through the clipped vessel was introduced, and the performance of the proposed clip was evaluated using in vitro and in vivo experiments.

RESULTS: During in vitro experiments, no leakage was found after clipping at cuts made in artificial vessels, and flow was maintained through the clipped artificial vessels. In experiments on rats, all the implanted clips occluded the target vessels successfully, and no bleeding or tissue damage was observed at the operative site after the rats were euthanized on postoperative day 7. In experiments on pigs, bleeding stopped immediately after partial clipping of a damaged vessel, and some amount of blood flow was consistently maintained through the clipped vessel after hemostasis.

CONCLUSION: We believe that the proposed hemostatic clip and clip applier can enhance patient safety during laparoscopic surgery.

Reduced hemoglobin and increased C-reactive protein are associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM: To investigate the early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (endoscopy) significantly reduces mortality resulting from upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS: Upper GI bleeding was defined as 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b according to the Forrest classification. The hemoglobin (Hb), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were examined at around the day of endoscopy and 3 mo prior to endoscopy. The rate of change was calculated as follows: (the result of blood examination on the day of endoscopy - the results of blood examination 3 mo prior to endoscopy)/(results of blood examination 3 mo prior to endoscopy). Receiver operating characteristic curves were created to determine threshold values.

RESULTS: Seventy-nine men and 77 women were enrolled. There were 17 patients with upper GI bleeding: 12 with a gastric ulcer, 3 with a duodenal ulcer, 1 with an acute gastric mucosal lesion, and 1 with gastric cancer. The area under the curve (AUC), threshold, sensitivity, and specificity of Hb around the day of endoscopy were 0.902, 11.7 g/dL, 94.1%, and 77.1%, respectively, while those of CRP were 0.722, 0.5 mg/dL, 70.5%, and 73%, respectively. The AUC, threshold, sensitivity, and specificity of the rate of change of Hb were 0.851, -21.3%, 76.4%, and 82.6%, respectively, while those of CRP were 0.901, 100%, 100%, and 82.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Predictors for upper GI bleeding were Hb < 11.7 g/dL, reduction rate in the Hb > 21.3% and an increase in the CRP > 100%, 3 mo before endoscopy.

Bedside bleeding control, review paper and proposed algorithm

Bleeding is a common occurrence in practice, but occasionally it may be challenging issue to overcome. It can come from numerous sources such as, trauma, during or post-surgical intervention, disorders of platelet and coagulation factors and increased fibrinolysis, wounds and cancers. This paper was inspired from our experience with a patient admitted to a local long term acute care facility with a large fungating right breast cancerous wound. During her hospital stay spontaneous bleeding from her breast cancerous mass was encountered and became more frequent and significant over the period of her stay. Different hemostatic technologies were used to control her bleeding. We felt that it was important to share our experience with our colleagues to help with potential similar situation that they may face.

Recent advances on the management of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The mainstays of therapy include prompt resuscitation, early risk stratification, and appropriate access to endoscopy. Patients with high-risk endoscopic findings should receive endoscopic hemostasis with a modality of established efficacy. The pillar of post-endoscopic therapy is acid-suppression via proton pump inhibitors (PPI), although the optimal dose and route of administration are still unclear. Post-discharge management of patients with peptic ulcers includes standard oral PPI treatment and eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The risk of recurrent bleeding should be carefully considered and appropriate gastroprotection should be offered when non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-platelet agents, and/or anticoagulation need to be used. This review seeks to survey new evidence in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding that has emerged in the past 3 years and put it into context with recommendations from recent practice guidelines.