Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers

Emergent gastroscopy in the treatment of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an analysis of 42 cases

AIM: To evaluate the efficiency of gastroscopic epinephrine injection with heat probe coagulation in the treatment of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB).

METHODS: Forty-two cases of ANVUGIB (including 13 cases of gastric ulcer, 25 cases of duodenal ulcer, and 4 cases of Dieulafoy' disease) were treated with gastroscopic epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation.

RESULTS: Bleeding was controlled in 38 (90.5%) of 42 cases. The rebleeding rate was 23.7% (9/38), and the surgery rate was 19.0% (8/42). No death occurred.

CONCLUSION: Epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation is an effective method for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding.

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second haemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing endoscopic treatment: epinephrine alone versus epinephrine associated with a second haemostatic method in adults with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by the Forrest classification. Bleeding must have been confirmed by endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 1763 people were included. Adding a second procedure reduced further bleeding rate from 18.8% to 10.4%; Peto Odds Ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.66, and emergency surgery from 10.8% to 7.1%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89. Mortality fell from 5% to 2.5% OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82. 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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF NON-VARICEAL UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL HAEMORRHAGE

Endoscopy plays a central role in the diagnosis and treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Advances in endoscopic techniques, supported by an increasing body of high quality data, have rendered endoscopy the first-line diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for the patient presenting with an upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. However, endoscopic intervention must be considered in the context of the overall management of the bleeding patient, often with significant comorbidities. Although parameters such as hospitalization duration, transfusion requirements and surgery rates have improved with advances in endoscopic therapy, mortality rates remain relatively static. This review addresses the current status of endoscopic intervention for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Additionally, an overview of important periprocedural management issues is presented.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is an important condition facing gastroenterologists. The focus of this article is the management of NVUGIB, with a particular emphasis on the endoscopic modalities and techniques that are most effective for various bleeding etiologies. Attention also is given to medical management, risk assessment, and issues pertaining to the timing of endoscopy and need for scheduled second-look endoscopy.

Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no definite recommendation on the use of dual endoscopic therapy in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether the use of two endoscopic hemostatic procedures improved patient outcomes compared with monotherapy.

METHODS

A search for randomized trials comparing dual therapy (i.e., epinephrine injection plus other injection or thermal or mechanical method) versus monotherapy (injection, thermal, or mechanical alone) was performed between 1990 and 2006. Heterogeneity between studies was tested with chi(2) and explained by metaregression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2,472 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, dual endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding (OR [odds ratio] 0.59 [0.44-0.80], P= 0.0001) and the risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89], P= 0.03) and showed a trend toward a reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.68 [0.46-1.02], P= 0.06). Subcategory analysis showed that dual therapy was significantly superior to injection therapy alone for all the outcomes considered, but failed to demonstrate that any combination of treatments is better than either mechanical therapy alone (OR 1.04 [0.45-2.45] for rebleeding, 0.49 [0.50-4.87] for surgery, and 1.28 [0.34-4.86] for death) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.67 [0.40-1.20] for rebleeding, 0.89 [0.45-1.76] for surgery, and 0.51 [0.24-1.10] for death).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual endoscopic therapy proved significantly superior to epinephrine injection alone, but had no advantage over thermal or mechanical monotherapy in improving the outcome of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

A prospective, randomized comparison of adrenaline injection in combination with detachable snare versus adrenaline injection alone in the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding in large colonic polyps

OBJECTIVES

Our study sought to compare the efficacy of adrenaline injection in combination with detachable snare versus adrenaline injection alone in the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding in large colonic polyps.

METHODS

At the time of colonoscopy, patients with at least one colonic polyp > or =2 cm were randomized to receive treatment either by the injection of a 1:10.000 solution of adrenaline and the position of a detachable snare followed by a conventional snare polypectomy (group A) or injection of adrenaline followed by a conventional snare polypectomy (group B). A total of 159 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to one of the above groups. Out of them, 84 patients (47 men, 37 women, mean age 61 yr) were assigned to group A and 75 (37 men, 38 women, mean age 64 yr) to group B. Early (<24 h) and late (>24 h-30 days) bleeding complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall bleeding complications occurred in 10/159 (6.2%) of the patients. There were two cases of bleeding in group A (2.3%), and eight in group B (10.6%) (P= 0.04). The number of early bleeding episodes was significantly reduced in group A patients (1 case) compared to that of group B (7 cases) (P= 0.02). In contrast, there was no significant difference between group A and B as far as late bleeding is concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the use of adrenaline injection in combination with detachable snare may significantly decrease the number of early postpolypectomy bleeding episodes in patients with large colonic polyps.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with special attention to patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, and postprocedure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a large multicenter clinical trial, nurse-administered propofol sedation had a complication rate of less than 0.2%. The optimal management for an ulcer with adherent clot was confirmed by a meta-analysis to be clot removal and endoscopic treatment of the underlying lesion. A number of prospective studies have demonstrated that capsule endoscopy is the most sensitive imaging modality for identifying lesions in the small bowel and that double-balloon enteroscopy is the least invasive modality available for the management of these lesions.

SUMMARY

This update describes many recent advances in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, clearly, much work needs to be done in this field. Since propofol is not available for use in all endoscopy units, is there a better alternative for deep sedation? Rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients after endoscopic therapy, and so can we provide better outcomes with newer technologies (endoscopic suturing devices)? Finally, what is the best management for Helicobacter pylori-negative, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-negative ulcer patients?

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NUGB) remains a major medical problem even after advances in medical therapy with gastric acid suppression and cyclooxygenase (COX-2) inhibitors. Although the incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding presenting to the emergency room has slightly decreased, similar decreases in overall mortality and rebleeding rate have not been experienced over the last few decades. Many causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been identified and will be reviewed. Endoscopic, radiographic and angiographic modalities continue to form the basis of the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with new research in the field of CT angiography to diagnose gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic and angiographic treatment modalities will be highlighted, emphasizing a multi-modality treatment plan for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of bleeding ulcer patients receiving endoscopic epinephrine injection therapy. It remains unclear whether addition of a secondary clip therapy following epinephrine injection may reduce the rebleeding rate of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

One hundred five bleeding ulcer patients with active spurting, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots in ulcer bases.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic combination therapy (n = 52) or diluted epinephrine injection alone (n = 53).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis rates and recurrent bleeding rates.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 51 patients treated with combination therapy and 49 patients with epinephrine injection therapy (98% vs 92%, P = .18). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients in the combination therapy group and 11 patients in the epinephrine injection group (3.8% vs 21%, P = .008). Among the patients with rebleeding, repeated combination therapy was more effective than repeated injection therapy in achieving permanent hemostasis (100% vs 33%, P = .02). No patient required an emergency operation in the combination therapy group. However, 5 patients in the epinephrine injection group underwent emergency surgery to arrest bleeding (0% vs 9%, P = .023).

LIMITATIONS

Treatment outcome of endoscopic hemoclip therapy is related to the techniques of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic combination therapy is superior to epinephrine injection alone in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Current management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common and potentially fatal condition. It is best managed using a multidisciplinary approach by a team with medical, endoscopic and surgical expertise. The management of peptic ulcer bleeding has been revolutionized in the past two decades with the advent of effective endoscopic hemostasis and potent acid-suppressing agents. A prompt initial clinical and endoscopic assessment should allow patients to be triaged effectively into those who require active therapy, versus those who require monitoring and preventative therapy. A combination of pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy (using a combination of injection and thermal coagulation) offers the best chance of hemostasis for those with active bleeding ulcers. Surgery, being the most effective way to control bleeding, should be considered for treatment failures. The choice between surgery and repeat endoscopic therapy should be based on the pre-existing comorbidities of the patient and the characteristics of the ulcer.

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.

N/A

N/A

[Endoscopic treatment of bleeding ulcers: has everything been said and done?]

Endoscopic treatment reduces bleeding recurrence, the need for surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding ulcers. However endoscopic treatment fails in 10-15% of patients, leading to high morbidity and mortality. The therapeutic measures with demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk of hemorrhagic recurrence and its complications are combined endoscopic treatment (adrenaline plus a second hemostatic intervention) and proton pump inhibitors. Also useful, although there is less evidence, are immediate resuscitation and <<second look>> endoscopy. Some studies suggest that activated recombinant factor VII infusion or supra-selective arterial embolization can be useful in severe hemorrhage. Further studies are required to determine optimal treatment according to the characteristics of each patient.

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.

Epinephrine injection therapy versus a combination of epinephrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding ulcers

AIM: To assess the efficacy of hemoclip application in combination with epinephrine injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers and to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with such a combination therapy and those treated with epinephrine injection alone.

METHODS: A total of 293 patients (211 males, 82 females) underwent endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Of these, 202 patients (152 males, 50 females) received epinephrine injection therapy while 91 patients (59 males, 32 females) received combination therapy. The choice of endoscopic therapy was made by the endoscopist. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, need for emergency surgery and 30-d mortality were the outcome measures studied.

RESULTS: Patients who received combination therapy were significantly older (mean age 66±16 years, range 24-90 years) and more suffered from chronic renal failure compared to those who received epinephrine injection therapy alone (mean age 61±17 years, range 21-89 years). Failure to achieve permanent hemostasis was 4% in the group who received epinephrine injection alone and 11% in the group who received combination therapy. When the differences in age and renal function between the two treatment groups were taken into account by multivariate analysis, the rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rates, need for surgery and 30-d mortality for both treatment options were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of epinephrine injection with endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective method of achieving hemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcer diseases. However, superiority of combination therapy over epinephrine injection alone, could not be demonstrated.

Intravenous pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers

AIM

The role of intravenous pantoprazole in treatment of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis remains uncertain. We therefore conducted the pilot prospective randomized study to assess whether intravenous pantoprazole could improve the efficacy of H(2)-antagonist as an adjunct treatment following endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding ulcers.

METHODS

Patients with active bleeding ulcers or ulcers with major signs of recent bleeding were treated with distilled water injection. After hemostasis was achieved, they were randomly assigned to receive intravenous pantoprazole or ranitidine.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients were enrolled in this prospective trial. Bleeding recurred in 2 patients (4%) in the pantoprazole group (n = 52), as compared with 8 (16%) in the ranitidine group (n = 50). The rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the pantoprazole group (P = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to the need for emergency surgery (0% vs 2%), transfusion requirements (4.9+/-5.9 vs 5.7+/-6.8 units), hospital days (5.9+/-3.2 vs 7.5+/-5.0 d) or mortality (2% vs 2%).

CONCLUSION

Pantoprozole is superior to ranitidine as an adjunct treatment to endoscopic injection therapy in high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Combined epinephrine and bipolar probe coagulation vs. bipolar probe coagulation alone for bleeding peptic ulcer: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment with combined modalities is considered standard of care for patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. This study compared epinephrine injection plus bipolar probe coagulation with bipolar probe coagulation alone in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with endoscopically confirmed peptic ulcer bleeding (active or visible vessel) seen from January 2000 through December 2002 were prospectively randomized to two groups. The study group (n = 58) had epinephrine injection followed by bipolar coagulation; the control group (n = 56) was treated by bipolar coagulation alone. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of initial hemostasis and the rate of recurrent bleeding. Secondary outcomes were the following: need for surgical intervention to control bleeding, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay (in days), and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The rate of initial hemostasis was significantly higher in the combination therapy group ( p = 0.02; absolute risk reduction 31.6%: 95% CI [5.4, 57.7]). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with respect to all other outcomes measures, except that significantly fewer units of blood were transfused in the combination therapy group ( p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, epinephrine injection plus bipolar coagulation achieved significantly higher rate of initial hemostasis. All other outcome measures were similar with either treatment in patients with non-bleeding stigmata.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses key issues in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding including patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, disposition, and recommended pharmacologic interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Optimal resuscitation before endoscopy and proper pharmacologic interventions after endoscopy seem to be as crucial to the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding as meticulous hemostatic techniques during the procedure. In a retrospective evaluation of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in those who underwent aggressive preendoscopic resuscitation. In a prospective, randomized clinical trial, patients who received intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy after endoscopic intervention had a significantly reduced rebleeding rate compared with their placebo control group.

SUMMARY

The algorithms described in this review can be applied clinically today and should directly lead to improved outcome. Nevertheless, even with the latest care available, results are not optimal. This review points to two major areas where we can benefit from improvement: primary hemostasis and recurrent bleeding. By pointing to these limitations, it is hoped that this review can help stimulate research in the field by applying new technologies to solve these problems. Endoscopic ultrasound, for example, could be used to help identify feeding vessels that can be treated endoscopically, thus potentially decreasing the incidence of failed primary hemostasis. Endoscopic suturing, when more fully developed, may provide a better hemostatic technique that can reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding. It is only through these reviews that our state of knowledge in the field can be constantly reevaluated to update today's clinician with the latest knowledge and stimulate tomorrow's researchers with challenging problems.

Management of haematemesis and melaena

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency which carries hospital mortality in excess of 10%. The most important causes are peptic ulcer and varices. Varices are treated by endoscopic band ligation or injection sclerotherapy and management of the underlying liver disease. Ulcers with major stigmata are treated by injection with dilute adrenaline, thrombin, or fibrin glue; application of heat using the heater probe, multipolar electrocoagulation, or Argon plasma coagulation; or endoclips. Intravenous omeprazole reduces the risk of re-bleeding in ulcer patients undergoing endoscopic therapy. Repeat endoscopic therapy or operative surgery are required if bleeding recurs.

Management of haematemesis and melaena

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency which carries hospital mortality in excess of 10%. The most important causes are peptic ulcer and varices. Varices are treated by endoscopic band ligation or injection sclerotherapy and management of the underlying liver disease. Ulcers with major stigmata are treated by injection with dilute adrenaline, thrombin, or fibrin glue; application of heat using the heater probe, multipolar electrocoagulation, or Argon plasma coagulation; or endoclips. Intravenous omeprazole reduces the risk of re-bleeding in ulcer patients undergoing endoscopic therapy. Repeat endoscopic therapy or operative surgery are required if bleeding recurs.

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.

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.

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage: is the surgeon obsolete?

The management of GI hemorrhage has undergone tremendous evolution in recent decades. Once commonly managed by surgeons, the almost continuous introduction of new technologies and pharmacotherapies has dramatically improved clinicians' ability to identify and control sources of bleeding without surgery. Although a gastroenterologist can successfully manage most cases of GI hemorrhage endoscopically, surgical consultation remains an important consideration for the emergency physician in selected cases.

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.

The role of endoscopic Doppler US in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Stigmata of recent hemorrhage are important prognostic signs for patients with ulcer bleeding, but these are subjective findings. This study evaluated the additional diagnostic value of Doppler US assessment in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study was performed of patients with ulcer bleeding. Stigmata of recent hemorrhage were classified according to the Forrest classification, after which the ulcer was assessed by using an endoscopic Doppler US system. Patients with a Forrest Ib-IIb ulcer with a positive Doppler signal received endoscopic therapy. Patients with a Forrest IIc-III ulcer with a positive Doppler signal were allocated randomly to endoscopic therapy or no therapy. No ulcer without a Doppler signal was treated.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were enrolled. Of the Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers, 82% had a positive Doppler signal. Of the Forrest IIc-III ulcers, 53% had a positive Doppler signal. There was no difference in the rates of recurrent bleeding, surgery, or mortality between the group with Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers and between the Forrest IIc-III group with and without Doppler signal, but there was little power in the sample size to detect differences. Bleeding recurred in 3 patients without a Doppler signal. Recurrent bleeding was more frequent in the group in which a Doppler signal was still present immediately after endoscopic therapy (3/11 vs. 1/27; p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not substantiate a role for endoscopic Doppler US when this was added to the Forrest classification for making clinical decisions in patients with ulcer bleeding.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration.

SUMMARY

These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.

Effect of scheduled second therapeutic endoscopy on peptic ulcer rebleeding: a prospective randomised trial

AIM

Recurrent bleeding after initial haemostasis is an important factor that directly relates to the outcome in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding. Conflicting reports have been published concerning the effectiveness of scheduled second therapeutic endoscopy on ulcer rebleeding. We investigate the use of scheduled second endoscopy with appropriate therapy on peptic ulcer rebleeding.

METHODS

From August 1999 to January 2001, we prospectively randomised patients who had endoscopically confirmed bleeding peptic ulcer with stigmata of acute bleeding, visible vessel, or adherent clot into two groups. Endoscopic therapy was standardised to initial epinephrine injection and subsequent heater probe application. The study group (n = 100) received scheduled second endoscopy 16-24 hours after initial haemostasis, and further therapy was applied if endoscopic stigmata persisted, as above. The control group (n = 94) were observed closely. Those patients that developed rebleeding in either group underwent operation if further endoscopic therapy failed. Outcome measures included ulcer rebleeding, transfusion, duration of stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

After initial endoscopic haemostasis, 194 eligible patients were randomised into two groups. Thirteen patients in the control group developed recurrent bleeding within 30 days while five patients in the study group sustained recurrent bleeding (p = 0.0314) (relative risks 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.96). The number of patients that required surgery for recurrent bleeding was six in the control group and one in the study group (p = 0.05). There was no difference in duration of hospital stay, transfusion, or mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A scheduled repeat endoscopy with appropriate therapy 16-24 hours after initial endoscopic haemostasis reduces the number of cases of recurrent bleeding.

A prospective, randomized comparison of 10-Fr versus 7-Fr bipolar electrocoagulation catheter in combination with adrenaline injection in the endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers

OBJECTIVES

Our study compared the efficacy of bipolar electrocoagulation (gold probe) with 10-Fr (group A) versus 7-Fr (group B) catheter after adrenaline injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

A total of 77 consecutive patients with endoscopic evidence of peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to one of the above protocols. Thirty-nine patients (31 male, eight female, mean age 62 yr) were included in group A and 38 (28 male, 10 female, mean age 61 yr) in group B.

RESULTS

The initial hemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, duration of hospital stay, volume of blood transfused, number of operations needed, and number of deaths were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean number of electrocoagulations and the subsequent mean duration of electrocoagulations were significantly higher in group B patients (7.0 +/- 3.8 and 14.1 +/- 7.6 s, respectively) compared with those of group A (4.6 +/- 2.6 and 9.3 +/- 5.3 s, respectively) (p < 0.01). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, location of bleeding, ulcer size, endoscopic severity of bleeding, and the size of the gold probes, lesser endoscopic severity of bleeding (chi(2) = 31.1, p < 0.01), large size of the gold probe (chi(2) = 23.9, p < 0.01), and small ulcer size (chi(2) = 13.4, p < 0.01) were the only factors significantly associated with a smaller number of electrocoagulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the use of large-size gold probes was significantly associated with a lower number of electrocoagulations, resulting in the reduction of electrocoagulation duration. However, the clinical relevance of these findings is questionable because the efficacy of both sizes of gold probe after adrenaline injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers was similar.

Current management of acute gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic therapy is now the first-line treatment for the management of acute ulcer bleeding. Of the many endoscopic methods available, combination treatment using adrenaline injection to arrest the active bleeding, followed by thermal or electrical coagulation to seal the vessel, is currently the most popular. Endoscopic ulcer haemostasis is technically demanding, and indiscriminate extrapolation of results of published trials without reference to the expertise available locally may be dangerous. The cost-effectiveness of a routine second-look endoscopy has not been established, but repeat treatment in those who have rebled has shown good results in experienced hands. Current evidence supports the use of a proton-pump inhibitor to prevent acid-pepsin digestion of the blood clot plugging the eroded blood vessel. Interplay between acid, Helicobacter, NSAID and 'stress' results in peptic ulceration. Eradication of Helicobacter is an important measure in the secondary prevention of ulcer bleeding. The inability to measure blood flow in the eroded artery before and after treatment, to reliably seal a large blood vessel and to detect rebleeding before significant blood loss are limiting factors in the current management of ulcer bleeding.

The role of acid suppression in the management and prevention of gastrointestinal hemorrhage associated with gastroduodenal ulcers

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a substantial source of morbidity and mortality in the ICU setting. Endoscopic injection with adrenaline and thermocoagulation is the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeds. To enhance healing and overcome limitations of endoscopic therapies, acid suppression therapy is recommended. Although results from a few studies do not support their use fully following an episode of acute UGI bleeding, PPIs have been used successfully to lower transfusion requirements and additional surgical procedures, reduce hospital stays, and lower medical costs. H2RAs and PPIs have a rapid onset of action when given intravenously; however, patients quickly become tolerant to the effects of H2RAs, generally requiring increased doses of medication after the first day of administration. PPIs provide persistent acid suppression, maintaining neutral gastric pH, especially during the critical first 72 hours following a bleed. Recent clinical studies further support their use in preventing bleeding in the clinical setting. Controversy exists over the utility of pharmacologically induced acid suppression in critically ill patients at risk for stress ulcers. Comparative pH studies, however, suggest that i.v. PPIs such as pantoprazole are more effective in raising intragastric pH than are H2RAs. Although the clinical benefits of PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis have not been established, there is a theoretical framework suggesting that they should be beneficial. Ongoing clinical studies should show whether the theoretical advantage translates into clinically meaningful benefits.

A randomized trial comparing heater probe plus thrombin with heater probe plus placebo for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial compared the efficacy of combined endoscopic hemostatic treatment using the heater probe plus thrombin injection with that of the heater probe plus placebo injection as treatment for peptic ulcers with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels. Efficacy was defined in terms of primary hemostasis, prevention of rebleeding, and need for urgent surgery.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-seven patients presenting with major peptic ulcer bleeding were randomized to heater probe plus thrombin or to heater probe plus placebo. The groups were well matched for all risk categories including age, endoscopic stigmata, shock, and severity of comorbid diseases. Endoscopic therapy was applied using the heater probe followed by injection of thrombin or placebo.

RESULTS

Successful primary hemostasis was achieved in 97% of patients. Rebleeding developed in 19 (15%) of thrombin plus heater probe patients and 17 (15%) of placebo plus heater probe patients. Emergency surgery was necessary in 16 and 13 patients, respectively. Eight patients in the thrombin group had adverse events compared with 4 in the placebo group. Eight (6%) of thrombin plus heater probe patients and 14 (12%) of placebo plus heater probe patients died (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of thrombin and the heater probe does not confer an additional benefit over heater probe and placebo as endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Our trial does not support the use of this combination of hemostatic therapy.

Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? Time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993/1994 and 2000

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine recent time trends in incidence and outcome of upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

Prospective data collection on all patients presenting with acute upper GI bleeding from a defined geographical area in the period 1993/1994 and 2000.

RESULTS

Incidence decreased from 61.7/100,000 in 1993/94 to 47.7/100,000 persons annually in 2000, corresponding to a 23% decrease in incidence after age adjustment (95% CI = 15-30%). The incidence was higher among patients of more advanced age. Rebleeding (16% vs 15%) and mortality (14% vs 13%) did not differ between the two time periods. Ulcer bleeding was the most frequent cause of bleeding, at 40% (1993/94) and 46% (2000). Incidence remained stable for both duodenal and gastric ulcer bleeding. Almost one half of all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Also, among patients with ulcer bleeding, rebleeding (22% vs 20%) and mortality (15% vs 14%) did not differ between the two time periods. Increasing age, presence of severe and life-threatening comorbidity, and rebleeding were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1993/1994 and 2000, among patients with acute upper GI bleeding, the incidence rate of upper GI bleeding significantly decreased, but no improvement was seen in the risk of rebleeding or mortality in these patients. The incidence rate of ulcer bleeding remained stable. Prevention of ulcer bleeding is important.

Outcome of endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding: Is a second look necessary? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy for GI bleeding is highly effective. Nevertheless, bleeding recurs in 10% to 25% of cases, irrespective of the method of treatment used. Whether a second-look endoscopy with retreatment after initial hemostasis is of clinical value is controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess whether systematic second-look endoscopy with retreatment reduces the risks of recurrent bleeding, salvage surgery, and death in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled studies of the value of second-look endoscopy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding published between 1990 and 2000. Four studies were selected according to predefined criteria. Two investigators extracted the data independently. Pooled risk estimates and number need to treat were calculated for each procedure. Heterogeneity of effects was tested.

RESULTS

The absolute risk reduction in clinical recurrent bleeding was 6.2% (p < 0.01). Absolute risk reduction for surgery and mortality were, respectively, 1.7% and 1.0% (not significant). The second look with retreatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent bleeding compared with control patients (OR 0.64; 95% CI [0.44, 0.95]; p < 0.01), with a number needed to treat of 16. There was no heterogeneity among studies. The risk of surgery as well as the risk of death were not significantly influenced by the second-look endoscopy with retreatment (number needed to treat, respectively, 58 and 97).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic second-look endoscopy with retreatment significantly reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding compared with control patients, but it does not substantially reduce the risk of salvage surgery or mortality.

Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis: the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies

OBJECTIVES

Controversy exists regarding the optimal strategy to minimize recurrent ulcer hemorrhage after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies for the posthemostasis management of patients with high risk ulcer stigmata.

METHODS

Through decision analysis, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of four strategies: 1) follow patients clinically after hemostasis and repeat endoscopy only in patients with evidence of rebleeding (usual care); 2) administer intravenous proton pump inhibitors (i.v. PPIs) after hemostasis and repeat endoscopy only in patients with clinical signs of rebleeding; 3) perform second look endoscopy at 24 h in all patients with successful endoscopic hemostasis; and 4) perform selective second look endoscopy at 24 h only in patients at high risk for rebleeding as identified by the prospectively validated Baylor Bleeding Score. Probability estimates were derived from a systematic review of the medical literature. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursement. Effectiveness was defined as the proportion of patients with rebleeding, surgery, or death prevented.

RESULTS

The selective second look endoscopy strategy was the most effective and least expensive of the four competing strategies, and therefore dominated the analysis. The i.v. PPI strategy required 50% fewer endoscopies than the competing strategies, and became the dominant strategy when the rebleed rate with i.v. PPIs fell below 9% and when the cost of i.v. PPIs fell below 10 dollars/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the usual practice of "watchful waiting," performing selective second look endoscopy in high risk patients may prevent more cases of rebleeding, surgery, or death at a lower overall cost. However, i.v. PPIs are likely to reduce the need for second look endoscopy and may be preferred overall if the rebleed rate and cost of i.v. PPIs remains low.