A randomized trial comparing injection therapy with hemoclip and with injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding ulcers

Factors associated with failure of initial endoscopic hemoclip hemostasis for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemoclip is widely used for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. The major difficulty in clinical application of the hemoclip is deployment to the lesion during initial hemostasis. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with the failure of endoscopic hemoclip for initial hemostasis of upper GI bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January to December 2003, we prospectively studied 77 randomized patients with clinical evidence of upper GI bleeding due to either active bleeding or a visible vessel identified by upper GI endoscopy in our emergency department.

RESULTS

Among the 77 patients, 13 (16.9%) failed treatment (Group 1) and 64 (83.1%) were successfully (Group 2) treated by endoscopic hemoclip for lesions related to upper GI bleeding. There were no differences due to gender, blood pressure, initial heart rate, and hemoglobulin before or after endoscopic treatment, platelet count, serum creatinine, and albumin between groups. The mean age of Group 1 was higher than that of Group 2 (73.31+/-9.38 years vs. 65.41+/-16.45 years, respectively; P=0.083). Most patients who did not achieve initial hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclip had upper GI lesions over the gastric antrum and duodenal bulb. Among the 13 patients who failed to achieve endoscopic hemoclip initial hemostasis, four lesions were located over the posterior wall of the antrum, and four lesions over the lesser curvature side of the duodenal bulb.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemoclip is an effective hemostatic method for upper GI bleeding. Age, gastric antrum, and duodenal bulb lesions may be associated with the failure of initial hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclip.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: standard and new treatment

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a challenging problem with a significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years endoscopic techniques have evolved, resulting in improved primary hemostasis and a reduction in the risk of rebleeding. Combination endoscopic therapy followed by high-dose proton pump inhibitor shows improved outcomes. Innovative endoscopic therapies hold promise but are as yet unproved. An aging population with significant medical comorbidities has a major influence on the overall outcome from upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Prospective trial of endoscopic clips versus combination therapy in upper GI bleeding (PROTECCT--UGI bleeding)

BACKGROUND

It is not known if combination therapy of epinephrine injection and multipolar electrocoagulation or hemoclips are a more efficient or effective treatment for patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS

Adult patients with active nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or after removal of an adherent clot findings of active bleeding or a visible vessel were studied. Patients were randomized to either therapy and the outcomes were assessed at 30 days.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were studied: 26 patients randomized to hemoclips and 21 to combination therapy. There were 22 patients with active bleeding, 13 with a nonbleeding visible vessel, and 12 with an adherent clot. The median duration of endoscopic therapy was 17 min in the hemoclip group versus 20 min for the combination therapy, p= 0.29. Primary hemostasis with successful initial control of bleeding occurred in 26 (100%) of 26 hemoclip patients and 20 (95.2%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.45. The rebleeding rates were: 4 (15.4%) of 26 hemoclip patients versus 5 (23.8%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.49. Overall, the length of hospital stay, units of blood transfused, surgery rates, and mortality were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective, randomized controlled trial of endoscopic hemoclips versus combination therapy in the nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, the efficiency, efficacy, and complications of the two treatment modalities were not significantly different.

Effectiveness of glycerol as a submucosal injection for EMR

BACKGROUND

EMR traditionally is performed by using normal saline solution (NS) as the submucosal fluid cushion. It is thought, however, that NS does not maintain the proper mucosal elevation for EMR of large, flat lesions. We investigated the efficacy of glycerol as the submucosal injection solution.

METHODS

A total of 110 colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LST) were treated by EMR with glycerol. For comparison, 113 LSTs treated by using NS were studied. The en bloc resection, complete resection, and associated complications rates were evaluated retrospectively.

OBSERVATIONS

The en bloc resection rate in the glycerol group was 63.6% (70/110) compared with 48.9% (55/113) in the NS group (p < 0.05). The complete resection rate in the glycerol group was 45.5% (50/110) compared with 24.6% (28/113) in the NS group (p < 0.01). The associated complications rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It technically was easier and as safe to perform EMR of colorectal LSTs when using glycerol as the submucosal injection solution.

Acute endoscopic intervention in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the commonest emergencies encountered by general physicians. Once haemodynamic stability has been achieved, therapeutic endoscopy is vital in control and arrest of bleeding. Various methods are available and the evidence is reviewed as to the most optimal approach. Clinical parameters including timing of endoscopy, risk stratification, and predictors of failure will also be discussed together with a summary of recommendations based on current available evidence.

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal bleeding should only be used if major stigmata of hemorrhage such as active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessel are present. Treatment of peptic ulcers with adherent clots is currently controversial. Combination of epinephrine injection and coaptive coagulation is most effective in achieving endoscopic hemostasis. Hemoclips may be preferable for very deep ulcers and large visible blood vessels if coaptive coagulation is anticipated to have a high risk of perforation or bleeding. Adrenaline injection or hemoclip application should be used in bleeding Mallory-Weiss tears, as the safety of thermal methods is not well established. Argon plasma coagulation is the mainstay of endoscopic treatment for superficial lesions such as angiodysplasia and gastric antral vascular ectasia. Both sclerotherapy and band ligation are effective in acute hemostasis of bleeding esophageal varices. Variceal band ligation is preferred due to its superior safety profile and shorter procedure time. Due to the early recurrence of varices after banding ligation, there may be a role for metachronous combination therapy of ligation followed by sclerotherapy. Histoacryl glue is the preferred method of endoscopic hemostasis in gastric varices.

Management of bleeding peptic ulcer in France: a national inquiry

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate and compare management practices in France for bleeding peptic ulcers using a national inquiry of university and non-university hospitals.

METHOD

Responses to questionnaires sent to 812 gastroenterologists, 496 practicing in non-university hospitals and 316 in university hospitals, were compared.

RESULTS

An analysis was possible in 279 (34% response rate) of the questionnaires. Forrest classification was used more frequently in university hospitals (83% vs 60%, P<0.01). Endoscopic hemostatic therapy was used more frequently in university hospitals for Forrest Ib (92% vs 81%, P=0.02), IIa (93% vs 73%, P<0.001), and IIb (58% vs 29%, P<0.001) ulcers. Injection therapy, mainly epinephrine, was the first-intention treatment for 99% of the responding gastroenterologists. Proportions of clinicians employing hemoclips (27%) or argon plasma coagulation (21%) were similar in both types of practice. Anti-secretory treatment included mainly omeprazole (82%), given intravenously (76%), sometimes as bolus i.v. doses followed by i.v. high-dose continuous infusion (15%) with some variations according to the type of hospital. In the event of recurrent or persistent bleeding, surgery was more frequent in non-university hospitals. When rebleeding occurred, a second endoscopic treatment was performed in about one quarter of patients.

CONCLUSION

In France, management practices for bleeding peptic ulcer vary between university and non-university hospitals.

Optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although the initial rate of hemostasis achieved by endoscopic epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding is high, bleeding recurs in 14.6% to 35.5% of patients. The aim of this study was to compare rates of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic injection of two different volumes of epinephrine in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 72 patients with peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to 15 to 25 mL or 35 to 45 mL injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. The mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.4 mL: 95% CI [18.7, 20.1] in the 15 to 25 mL group and 41.1 mL: 95% CI [40.0, 42.2] in the 35 to 45 mL group. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 35 of 36 patients (97.2%) in the 15 to 25 mL group and in all 36 patients in the 35 to 45 mL group. The 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.05). For ulcers in the gastric body, the 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 31.6%; p = 0.003). For ulcers in other locations, including the gastric antrum and the duodenum, there were no significant differences in the rate of recurrent bleeding between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of 35 to 45 mL of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine is more effective than injection of 15 to 25 mL of the same solution for prevention of recurrent bleeding from ulcers in the body of the stomach.

Endoscopic approach to the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small bowel enteroscopy, and colonoscopy are well-established standards for initial evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, and have been used effectively for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. Although thermal, injection, and mechanical methods have been the mainstay of endoscopic therapy, promising new technologies such as endoscopic ultrasound and wireless capsule endoscopy will further advance our ability to improve morbidity and mortality from severe gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Herein we review current standards and recent advances in the endoscopic management of upper, lower, and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing mechanical methods of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection to epinephrine injection alone for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The hemostatic efficacy of mechanical methods of hemostasis, together with epinephrine injection, was compared with that of epinephrine injection alone in bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

Ninety patients with a peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to undergo a mechanical method of hemostasis (23 hemoclip application, 22 band ligation) plus epinephrine injection, or epinephrine injection alone.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 44/45 (97.8%) patients in both groups. The mean number of hemoclips and elastic bands applied were 2.8: 95% CI[2.5, 3.1] and 1.1: 95% CI[1.0, 1.2], respectively, and the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.9 mL: 95% CI[19.3 mL, 20.5 mL]. The rate of recurrent bleeding in the combination group (2/44, 4.5%) was significantly lower in comparison with the injection group (9/44, 20.5%, p < 0.05). The mean number of therapeutic endoscopic sessions needed to achieve permanent hemostasis in the combination group (1.04: 95% CI[1.01, 1.07]) was significantly lower vs. the injection group (1.22: 95% CI[1.15, 1.30]).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an endoscopic mechanical method of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection is more effective than epinephrine injection alone for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.

Endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation for upper-GI hemorrhage: a comparison of one third and total circumference transparent end hoods

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemostasis for upper-GI hemorrhage often is difficult to achieve if the view of the bleeding lesion is poor because of the presence of mucus, blood, and clots. An end hood that facilitates endoscopic hemostatic procedures while simultaneously allowing irrigation of the bleeding site was designed by us. Based on this design, a one-third partial irrigating end hood was developed, and its usefulness for treatment of non-variceal hemorrhage was evaluated.

METHODS

The end hood was fabricated by drilling a side hole in the cap portion of a transparent end hood. An irrigation tube was glued to the exterior surface over the hole. A "total" (type 1) and a "one-third partial" (type 2) transparent end hood were fabricated. These differ with respect to the proportion of the endoscope circumference that is hooded by the device. The fabricated transparent end hood was placed on the tip of a standard endoscope. With the end hood in place, endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation was performed in 35 patients (type 1 end hood, 18; type 2, 17) with non-variceal upper-GI hemorrhage.

OBSERVATIONS

Hemostatic treatment was enhanced by simultaneous irrigation beneath the end hood, and hemostasis was successfully achieved in 34 of 35 cases. The time required to achieve hemostasis was significantly shorter in the type 2 group than the type 1 group (median 11.8 vs. 16.9 minutes; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The end hood was extremely useful for endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation. The "one-third partial" end hood is superior to the total end hood in terms of duration of time required to achieve hemostasis.

Endoscopic therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients. Although initially employed diagnostically, endoscopy has steadily replaced surgery as a first-line treatment in all but the haemodynamically unstable patient. A vast selection of techniques and devices are now available to the dedicated therapeutic endoscopist, including injection therapy, electrical or thermal coagulation and mechanical banding or clipping. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for targeting treatment is increasing and the development of new technologies, such as capsule endoscopy, is likely to play an important role in future protocols. However, despite numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of different endoscopic interventions, the implementation of obtained results into treatment regimes has so far failed to impact significantly on overall UGIB mortality, which remains stubbornly at 10-14%. Reducing this continues to be one of the main challenges facing the therapeutic endoscopist.

Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection.

METHODS

An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

Diagnostic and therapeutic options in the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcers is common. Advances in prognostication, therapeutic endoscopy, and medical management have evolved rapidly. Patients most likely to rebleed after therapy can now be identified and monitored more closely, and patients with ulcers of low risk for rebleeding can be managed on an outpatient basis. High-risk patients include those with ulcers containing a visible vessel or who are actively bleeding. Endoscopic therapy is mandatory in high-risk patients and involves at least two hemostatic techniques. Second-look endoscopy and repeated hemostasis should be performed promptly in patients who rebleed. Adjunctive treatment includes intravenous proton pump inhibitor administered in high doses for the first 72 hours after endoscopic therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal combination of hemostatic techniques to better target patients who are at risk for ulcer rebleeding.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal UGI bleeding is one of the most common emergencies that gastroenterologists encounter, and continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The keys to management are rapid resuscitation and stabilization; appropriate triage based on pre-endoscopic risk factors; early endoscopy to achieve prompt diagnosis and implement hemostatic therapy to high-risk lesions; and aggressive antisecretory therapy (in the case of peptic ulcer bleeding) to reduce the risk of continued or recurrent bleeding.

Endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treating patients of bleeding peptic ulcers with heater probe thermocoagulation and haemoclip is considered to be safe and very effective. Yet, there is no report comparing the haemostatic effects of endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection in these patients.

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of both therapeutic modalities in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 93 patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels were randomised to receive either endoscopic haemoclip (n = 46) or heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection (n = 47). Five patients from the haemoclip group were excluded because of the inability to place the haemoclip.

RESULTS

Initial haemostasis was achieved in 39 patients (95.1%) of the haemoclip group and 47 patients (100%) of the heater probe group (P > 0.1). Rebleeding occurred in four patients (10.3%) of the haemoclip group and three patients (6.4%) of the heater probe group (P > 0.1). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery and the mortality rates were not statistically different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

If the haemoclip can be applied properly, the clinical outcomes of the haemoclip group would be similar to those of the heater probe group in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, if the bleeders are located at the difficult-to-approach sites, heater probe plus hypertonic saline injection is the first choice therapy.

Evaluation of endoscopic hemostasis with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer: comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol in a prospective, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Although metallic hemoclips have been used for hemostasis of bleeding ulcer, there have been few prospective trials to evaluate their efficacy. In this study, a prospective, randomized trial was performed to evaluate endoscopic hemoclipping for bleeding gastric ulcer in comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol.

METHODS

During the period 1995-1998, 126 gastric ulcer patients with bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessel were considered for entry. They were randomly assigned to one of three groups: endoscopic hemostasis performed with injection of absolute ethanol (group I, n = 42), hemoclipping (group II, n = 42), and a combination of the two methods (group III, n = 42).

RESULTS

The permanent hemostatic rate was 85.7% in group I, 90.5% in group II, and 92.9% in group III. The mean volume of blood transfusion was 313 +/- 77 ml in group I, 274 +/- 54 ml in group II, and 163 +/- 42 ml in group III, which was significantly less than in groups I or II (p < 0.05). No patients required emergency surgery. Five patients died within a month after initial hemostasis as a result of unrelated conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer was as effective and safe as that with injection of absolute ethanol, and a combination of ethanol injection and hemoclips did not result in a great advantage over the two individual procedures.

N/A

N/A

[Acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Diagnosis and management]

Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage calls for a team approach. Early endotracheal intubation of unconscious patients helps to prevent aspiration. Erythromycin i.v. 20 min. before emergency endoscopy improves the diagnostic yield. Patients without increased risk of rebleeding may be treated on an outpatient basis. Band ligation is the gold standard for acute variceal bleeding. Terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide are equally effective but require additional measures for prevention of late recurrence. Somatostatin and analogues used as adjunct to ligation slightly reduce the risk of rebleeding but not of death. Three to seven days of prophylactic antibiotics decrease the risk of uncontrolled or recurrent bleeding. Therapeutic failures are rescued by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting (TIPS). Patients with nonvaricose bleeding should only be treated when active hemorrhage or a "visible vessel" is found. First line treatment is endoscopic injection of diluted adrenalin or isotonic saline. Thermal coagulation is an alternative. Tissue-destructing sclerosants should be avoided. Clipping and injection of fibrin glue are second and third line measures. Proton pump inhibitors improve endoscopic hemostasis, however, it is unclear whether high i.v. doses are required. H. pylori must be eradicated to prevent late recurrence. Rebleeding is treated endoscopically with angiographic intervention or surgery as rescue measures.

Interventional endoscopy

Technologic milestones have been achieved in the field of interventional endoscopy. These have resulted in improved hemostasis, more accurate cancer staging, safer and less invasive methods of removing gastric neoplasms, and endoscopic palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction via stenting. However, just as these milestones are achieved, new challenges emerge: (1) How much sedation can one use safely? (2) What is the risk of transmitting infection and how can that be prevented? (3) Can scopes be made smaller and more comfortable? (4) Can optics be improved? (5) Can endoscopic repair of gastric perforations be safely performed? In this section, we review some of these issues. First, we will provide an update on the most recent concepts in the field of light sedation and infection control. Then, a review of the most commonly used interventional endoscopy procedures, including hemostasis, endosonography, endoscopic mucosal resection, stenting, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube placements. Finally, an overview of the ongoing research and development in the field of interventional endoscopy and how it can improve patient comfort, diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic efficacy, and training in the future.