Prophylactic erythromycin in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: moving forward in improving endoscopic efficacy

The Use of Pre-Endoscopic Metoclopramide Does Not Prevent the Need for Repeat Endoscopy: A U.S. Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can cause upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), often needing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Second-look endoscopies verify resolution, but cost concerns prompt research on metoclopramide's efficacy compared to erythromycin.

METHODS

We analyzed the Diamond Network of TriNetX Research database, dividing UGIB patients with PUD undergoing EGD into three groups: metoclopramide, erythromycin, and no medication. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, we compared repeat EGD, post-EGD transfusion, and mortality within one month in two study arms.

RESULTS

Out of 97,040 patients, 11.5% received metoclopramide, 3.9% received erythromycin, and 84.6% received no medication. Comparing metoclopramide to no medication showed no significant difference in repeat EGD (10.1% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.34), transfusion (0.78% vs. 0.86%, p = 0.5), or mortality (1.08% vs. 1.08%, p = 0.95). However, metoclopramide had a higher repeat EGD rate compared to erythromycin (9.4% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.003), with no significant difference in transfusion or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to repeat EGD was not decreased with pre-EGD use of metoclopramide. If a prokinetic agent is to be used prior to EGD, erythromycin shows superior reduction in the need of repeat EGD as compared to metoclopramide.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.

Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Based on Time to Endoscopy: A Retrospective Study

Introduction Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major burden on the health care system. The timing of endoscopy has been an ongoing debate and data on the association of early endoscopy with a better or worse clinical outcome are conflicting. In our study, we aimed to identify the benefits versus the risks of performing an urgent endoscopy in regards to the number of endoscopic interventions, length of hospital stay, number of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfused, and mortality.  Methodology This is a retrospective record-based study. A total of 806 charts were reviewed and 251 patients with the signs and symptoms of UGIB on presentation were included in the study. Patients with variceal bleeding, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, insignificant bleeds with no drop in H/H, GI bleed not being the presenting complaint on admission, and patients on anticoagulation were excluded. Results Out of the patients who underwent an urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), 26.2% needed a second-look EGD 48 hours after the first EGD when compared to 4% and 2% in the early (12-24 hours) and late (>24 hours) endoscopy groups, respectively. In patients who underwent urgent EGD, 23% had active bleeding and it was statistically significant when compared to the other groups. The active bleeding limited the visualization during the endoscopy, which led to a repeat EGD in the urgent EGD group. If an endoscopic intervention was received, patients having EGD >24 hours received a smaller number of interventions. There was no statistical difference in the Blatchford scores between the three groups, indicating that the groups were similar in morbidity. No difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, or number of blood transfusions received, surgical or interventional radiology-guided interventions was found between the three groups. Conclusion Patients who underwent urgent endoscopy had more procedures, with no difference in mortality, number of units of blood transfused, or length of hospitalization when compared to the early or late endoscopy groups.

Clinical Approach to Manage Gastrointestinal Bleeding with a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD)

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an exceedingly important form of mechanical support for patients with end-stage heart failure. LVADs can be utilized both as a bridge to cardiac transplant and also as a definitive treatment. However, a few complications are associated with LVAD placement, the most common and cumbersome of which is gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with an incidence of about 30%. These bleeding events often require transfusion therapy, but they are rarely fatal.

The etiologies of GI bleeding following LVAD are multifactorial and include unstable hemodynamics, an acquired von Willebrand factor (vWf) deficiency, impaired platelet aggregation, and activation of fibrinolytic systems. The treatment of choice in LVAD implantation-associated GI bleeding is endoscopy, which plays a vital role in both its diagnosis and management. Even so, its effectiveness in controlling post-LVAD implantation GI bleeding is still poorly ascertained. In this article, we will review the use of medication and alterations in the LVAD setting to prevent the occurrence of GI bleeding, as well as the findings of previously reported literature on LVAD implantation-associated GI bleeding.