Characteristics of serious complicated gastroduodenal ulcers in Japan

Resuming aspirin in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Our primary and secondary aims were to analyze the evidence surrounding mortality and re-bleeding risks in patients on aspirin with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) as a function of whether or not aspirin was resumed after the bleeding episode, and to determine whether aspirin intake upon admission affected the outcomes.

Methods

A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies was performed. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done. Generic inverse variance and random-effects model were employed. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the I² test. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach for each comparison and outcome, and an evidence profile was created.

Results

Evidence from 1 RCT and 4 observational studies suggests that early aspirin resumption reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.63) while increasing re-bleeding risk (HR 1.90, 95%CI 0.60-6.00); moderate certainty of evidence. The observational evidence was inconsistent for both mortality (HR 0.84, 95%CI 0.54-1.33) and re-bleeding (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.47-1.55); very low certainty of evidence. Nine observational studies addressed our secondary aim: 6 provided inconsistent results regarding mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95%CI 0.80-1.50) and 4 provided inconsistent results regarding re-bleeding risk (pooled OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.53-1.59); very low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.

Conclusion

Evidence supporting a protective effect of aspirin resumption soon after NVUGIB is of low-to-moderate certainty, and is not informative as to the optimal timing of aspirin resumption.

Perforated peptic ulcer

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common emergency condition worldwide, with associated mortality rates of up to 30%. A scarcity of high-quality studies about the condition limits the knowledge base for clinical decision making, but a few published randomised trials are available. Although Helicobacter pylori and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are common causes, demographic differences in age, sex, perforation location, and underlying causes exist between countries, and mortality rates also vary. Clinical prediction rules are used, but accuracy varies with study population. Early surgery, either by laparoscopic or open repair, and proper sepsis management are essential for good outcome. Selected patients can be managed non-operatively or with novel endoscopic approaches, but validation of such methods in trials is needed. Quality of care, sepsis care bundles, and postoperative monitoring need further assessment. Adequate trials with low risk of bias are urgently needed to provide better evidence. We summarise the evidence for perforated peptic ulcer management and identify directions for future clinical research.