Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Pantoprazole-Associated Thrombocytopenia: A Literature Review and Case Report

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly utilized in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeds (UGIBs) due to their ability to stabilize blood clot formation. PPIs have been shown to reduce rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis and reduce signs of bleeding at index endoscopy. While PPIs are well-tolerated and commonly administered to patients suffering from acute UGIBs, significant adverse effects may occur. Patients have reported various mild systemic symptoms during short-term PPI use, including headache, rash, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, flatulence, constipation, and diarrhea. In general, serious side effects of PPIs tend to be mild during treatment periods under two weeks; however, as the treatment duration increases, side effects have been observed to increase in frequency and severity. PPI-induced thrombocytopenia is an exceedingly rarely reported adverse reaction that remains largely unstudied due to the dearth of patient cases. This adverse effect continues to be a diagnosis of exclusion, and there are no current evidence-based recommendations to approach this complication. Thrombocytopenia increases the risk of rebleeding and hemodynamic instability, which may be devastating to patients suffering from UGIBs. Here, we present a case of thrombocytopenia that began after the introduction of pantoprazole in the setting of a UGIB. The thrombocytopenia resolved promptly after cessation of the medication. We highlight this case to increase awareness of this rare finding given the lack of recommendations for short-term PPI-induced thrombocytopenia.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

Hepatic Encephalopathy After TIPS Placement: Predictive Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Management

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a challenging complication after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement. Despite recent advances, much is still uncertain regarding risk factors, preventative measures, and the management of HE after TIPS placement. Appropriate patient selection and pre-procedural risk stratification remain areas of focus. In this manuscript, we discuss the current state of research related to HE after TIPS placement, including information regarding risk stratification, complication prevention, and treatment options.

Optimal timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common indication for urgent endoscopy, but the correct timing of endoscopy in these patients is still debated. Our systematic review with meta-analysis was aimed at investigating the potential clinical benefit of very early endoscopy for UGIB patients. We performed an electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to 23rd May 2020 and considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing management of UGIB patients by very early vs early endoscopy. Only five RCTs were considered eligible for quantitative analysis, with a total population of 926 cases (468 in the very early endoscopy arm and 458 in the early). The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit for very early endoscopy compared to early endoscopy in terms of risk of rebleeding, mortality, ICU admission, blood transfusion, surgery and length of hospital stay. However, our results showed a significantly higher need for haemostatic treatment when very early endoscopy was performed (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.42, p < 0.01) in comparison to early endoscopy.

Massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to splenoportal axis thrombosis in a patient with a tested JAK2 mutation: A case report and review literature

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome defined as a portal venous pressure that exceeds 10mmHg. Cirrhosis is the most common cause of portal hypertension and thrombosis of the splenoportal axis not associated with liver cirrhosis is the second cause of portal hypertension in the Western world. The primary myeloproliferative disorders are the main cause of portal venous thrombosis and somatic mutation of Janus Kinase 2 gene (JAK2 V617F) can be found in approximately 90% of polycythemia vera, 50% of essential thrombocyrosis and 50% primary myelofibrosis. A a 55-year-old man with JAK2 mutation-associated splenoportal axis hypertension and bleeding complications due to oesophageal varices is reported. A massive upper bleeding episode made an emergent surgery to be done immediatelly at seventh day. The patient was discharged home at fifteenth day after surgery.

Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: an update

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage is a common cause for admission to hospital and is associated with a mortality of around 10%. Prompt assessment and resuscitation are vital, as are risk stratification of the severity of bleeding, early involvement of the multidisciplinary team and timely access to endoscopy, preferably within 24 h. The majority of bleeds are due to peptic ulcers for which Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents are the main risk factors. Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used before endoscopy, this is controversial. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification with the Glasgow Blatchford score is recommended as is the use of the Rockall score postendoscopy. Endoscopic therapy, with at least two haemostatic modalities, remains the mainstay of treating high-risk lesions and reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. High-dose PPI therapy after endoscopic haemostasis also reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. Variceal oesophageal haemorrhage is associated with a higher rebleeding rate and risk of death. Antibiotics and vasopressin analogues are advised in suspected variceal bleeding; however, endoscopic variceal band ligation remains the haemostatic treatment of choice. Balloon tamponade remains useful in the presence of torrential variceal haemorrhage or when endoscopy fails to secure haemostasis, and can be a bridge to further endoscopic attempts or placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This review aims to provide an update on the latest evidence-based recommendations for the management of acute upper GI haemorrhage.

Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is defined as bleeding proximal to the ligament of Treitz in the absence of oesophageal, gastric or duodenal varices. The clinical presentation varies according to the intensity of bleeding from occult bleeding to melena or haematemesis and haemorrhagic shock. Causes of UGIB are peptic ulcers, Mallory-Weiss lesions, erosive gastritis, reflux oesophagitis, Dieulafoy lesions or angiodysplasia. After admission to the hospital a structured approach to the patient with acute UGIB that includes haemodynamic resuscitation and stabilization as well as pre-endoscopic risk stratification has to be done. Endoscopy offers not only the localisation of the bleeding site but also a variety of therapeutic measures like injection therapy, thermocoagulation or endoclips. Endoscopic therapy is facilitated by acid suppression with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. These drugs are highly effective but the best route of application (oral vs intravenous) and the adequate dosage are still subjects of discussion. Patients with ulcer disease are tested for Helicobacter pylori and eradication therapy should be given if it is present. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have to be discontinued if possible. If discontinuation is not possible, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in combination with PPI have the lowest bleeding risk but the incidence of cardiovascular events is increased.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding emergencies: evidence-based medicine and practical considerations

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding remains one of the most common encounters in emergency medicine. The increased use of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs by the general population and the increased prescription of anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants after cardiovascular interventions and for prevention of cerebral vascular accidents may have aggravated the situation. Significant progress has been made in the past decade or so in the non-surgical management of acute upper GI bleeding emergencies. This article will review the current standard treatment of the most common upper GI bleeding emergencies in adults as supported by evidence-based medicine with practical considerations from the authors' own practice experience.

[Upper gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic shock at the end of the holidays: pre-hospital and in-hospital management of a gastrointestinal emergency]

Upon returning from holidays, a 55-year-old patient presenting with melena and haemorrhagic shock was admitted to a University hospital after receiving first emergency medical care in a German InterCity train. In an interdisciplinary effort, haemodynamics were stabilised and the airway and respiratory function were secured. Under emergency care conditions the patient then underwent an emergency upper GI endoscopy where a spurting arterial upper gastrointestinal bleeding (Forrest 1a) was found. While the bleeding could not be controlled with endoscopic techniques, definitive haemostasis was achieved with a surgical laparotomy. While not commonly established for patients with severe GI bleeding, by spontaneous implementation of an interdisciplinary trauma room approach following established trauma algorithms the team was able to achieve stabilisation of vital functions and final control of bleeding in this highly unstable patient. Although the majority of upper gastrointestinal bleedings spontaneously cease, emergency care algorithms should be developed and implemented for patients with severe gastrointestinal bleedings in shock. Following the case vignette, we discuss a potential approach and develop an exemplary protocol for shock room management in this patient subgroup.

Prediction and prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding after cardiac surgery: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) complications of cardiovascular surgery, particularly bleeding, occur frequently.

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors that predict upper GI bleeding (UGIB) after cardiac surgery to improve prognostication and, thus, outcomes.

METHODS

The present case-control study reviewed institutional records spanning 2002 to 2005 for consecutive patients who developed in-hospital UGIB following cardiovascular surgery. Each case was matched to two to three controls for age, sex and date of hospital admission. Demographics, pharmacotherapy (including use of in-hospital acid suppression), endoscopic findings and outcomes were recorded. After adjustment for possible confounders, including Parsonnet score and demographic parameters, conditional logistic regression analysis identified independent significant predictors of the subsequent development of UGIB.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 131 cases (mean [± SD] age 68.8±10.2 years, 69.5% male, mean Parsonnet score 24.6±14.2) and 387 matched controls (mean age 68.8±10.8 years, 70.0% male, mean Parsonnet score 20.9±14.2). UGIB events occurred a mean of 10.3±7.7 days after cardiac surgery. Duration of mechanical ventilation (OR 3.01 [95% CI 1.44 to 6.28]), elevation of international normalized ratio (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.31 to 2.78]) and occurrence of Clostridium difficile colitis before bleeding (OR 3.15 [95% CI 1.19 to 8.36]) were independent risk factors. Use of histamine type 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.12]) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.32]) demonstrated trends toward protecting against UGIB after cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

GI bleeding events occurred approximately 10 days after cardiac surgery in patients with a complicated postoperative course. Significant predictors of subsequent bleeding included increased duration of mechanical ventilation and elevation of international normalized ratio; routine acid suppression with PPIs should be considered in such patients. C difficile colitis also significantly predicted UGIB, and H2RAs should be considered for acid suppression. Neither H2RAs nor PPIs were effective in preventing UGIB, although the small number of patients limits definitive conclusions regarding the role of acid suppression.

Characteristics and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage remains a problem in spite of improved diagnosis and management. There is sparse knowledge of recent epidemiology and outcomes. We wanted to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage over a 4-year period in a tertiary referral hospital.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage to John Hunter Hospital between August 2004 and December 2008. Variables of interest included age, gender, co-morbidities, and time to endoscopy. Main outcomes included etiology, treatment, and survival. Variceal and non-variceal bleeds were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

There were 792 admissions from 734 unique patients (61% male) with a mean age of 66 years. The most frequent causes of non-variceal bleeds (88%) included ulcers 265 (33%); Mallory Weiss tear 91 (11%); esophagitis 60 (8%), and malignancy 29 (4%). Most patients had one or more co-morbidity (74%). Transfusion was not employed in 41%. Overall mortality was 4.0% (5.4% in the variceal and 3.9% in the non-variceal group). Only 1.9% of patients had surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are overall elderly with significant co-morbidities. Our overall mortality and surgery rates are lower than in previously published international data.

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.

[Classification and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

The upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains the most frequent emergency in gastroenterology. Due to the different therapeutic approach a distinction between the variceal and the non-variceal bleeding has been established. A risk assessment for the individual patient is crucial for timing of the endoscopic procedure as well as for the estimation of prognosis. This review gives an overview on modern therapeutic techniques for both, variceal and non-variceal bleeding highlighting on success rates but also on potential complications of the different therapeutic interventions.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to September 2005, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model. Searches were re-run in February 2006 and October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of hospitalised participants with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding, undergoing active treatment with a proton pump inhibitor PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment prior to endoscopy. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days and included mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH; active bleeding, non bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion requirements and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 2223 participants were included. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for dichotomous outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Unweighted pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). Unweighted pooled rebleeding rates were 13.9% and 16.6% respectively (OR 0.81; 95%CI 0.61 to 1.09). Pooled rates for surgery were 9.9% and 10.2% respectively (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35). PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). However, this result was not robust to sensitivity analysis. PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 8.6% and 11.7% respectively (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). For continuous outcomes (length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements), quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding might reduce the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy and significantly reduces requirement for endoscopic therapy during index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.

Active gastrointestinal bleeding: Use of hemostatic forceps beyond endoscopic submucosal dissection

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of the application of hemostatic forceps in active gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that is not related to endoscopic submucosal dissection. An 86-year-old woman with chronic intake of low-dose aspirin had a Dieulafoy’s lesion of the third duodenal portion. Bleeding control with epinephrine injection was unsuccessful. A 60-year-old man presented with a bleeding ulcer in the duodenal bulb. Ten days after combined endotherapy, he had recurrent bleeding from two minimal lesions in the same location. A 66-year-old woman under combined antithrombotic treatment was referred to us for chronic GI bleeding of unexplained origin. Endoscopy revealed active diverticular bleeding in the second duodenal portion. A 61-year-old woman underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of superficial gastric adenocarcinoma, which was complicated with immediate bleeding. In all cases, the blood was washed out using a water-jet-equipped, single-channel gastroscope with a large working channel. The bleeding points were pinched and retracted with hemostatic forceps. Monopolar electrocoagulation was performed using an electrosurgical current generator. Hemostasis was achieved. No complications occurred. In conclusion, hemostatic forceps may be an effective as well as safe alternative approach for active GI bleeding of various origins.

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

Use of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in a teaching hospital practice

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate intravenous proton-pump inhibitor (IV PPI) prescribing in a single academic teaching hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective pilot study of 107 patients in a single United States military teaching hospital was conducted over a 1-month period. Clinical data were collected and analyzed for demographic features, prior medication use, admission hemoglobin level, service prescribing the IV PPI, indication for IV PPI, IV PPI treatment duration, gastroenterology consultant use, endoscopic findings, and blood products given. Indications for use were compared with current established guidelines to determine appropriate usage.

RESULTS

A total of 683 doses of IV pantoprazole were prescribed over a 1-month period. Seventy-six patients (71%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 62-79%) who received IV PPIs did not meet the criteria for an appropriate indication for use. Ninety-nine patients in the study (93%; 95% CI, 86-96%) met criteria for an acceptable dosage given. The most common appropriate indication given was stress ulcer prophylaxis in a high-risk setting (13%; 95% CI, 8-21%) with appropriate use of this indication 45% of the time (95% CI, 29-62%). IV PPIs were appropriately prescribed most often by the medical intensive care unit (66.7%; 95% CI, 43-84%) and least often by the surgical wards services (16%; 95% CI, 7-33%). No discernable indication was given in 52% of cases (95% CI, 43-62%), and patients were not actually nil per os in 46% of these instances (95% CI, 34-59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous PPI prescribing habits in this military hospital facility are poor. A multifaceted approach including physician/pharmacist education, IV PPI ordering templates, and a consensus medical position statement from a major gastroenterological or prominent medical association may lead to more appropriate use.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors: an evidence-based review of their use in gastrointestinal disorders

Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcers, are very common and their prevalence is expected to rise as they are seen predominantly in the elderly. The general basis of treatment with antisecretory agents is to maintain gastric pH >4 for a substantial proportion of the 24-hour cycle. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to have the best benefit-risk ratio and have been used widely. Intravenous administration of a PPI provides gastric acid suppression faster than oral administration does. Whereas some indications for the use of intravenous PPIs are widely known, mostly for acute management of peptic ulcer bleeding, there are some controversies surrounding their use in other conditions such as stress-induced mucosal damage. There is still a need to define the best schedule for intravenous PPI administration (i.e. bolus infusion or constant infusion), the optimal time to switch from intravenous to oral administration and the choice of which agent is best. In most of the clinical scenarios where PPIs are recommended, they can be administered via either oral or enteral routes, unless the patient is nil by mouth. Since there are no head-to-head comparisons of the different intravenous PPIs available worldwide (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole), the rule might be to choose the drug with the best proven efficacy in each specific condition. Indeed, the key difference between them, the ability to reach and to maintain a threshold gastric pH, might not necessarily translate into clinically significant differences.

Recent advances in peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a common cause of hospital admission, morbidity and mortality. Data published since 2006 illustrate that assessment, endoscopic and pharmacological management, and follow-up strategies can be refined to improve the overall prognosis of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding etiology score for predicting variceal and non-variceal bleeding

AIM: To identify clinical parameters, and develop an Upper Gastrointesinal Bleeding (UGIB) Etiology Score for predicting the types of UGIB and validate the score.

METHODS: Patients with UGIB who underwent endoscopy within 72 h were enrolled. Clinical and basic laboratory parameters were prospectively collected. Predictive factors for the types of UGIB were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses and were used to generate the UGIB Etiology Score. The best cutoff of the score was defined from the receiver operating curve and prospectively validated in another set of patients with UGIB.

RESULTS: Among 261 patients with UGIB, 47 (18%) had variceal and 214 (82%) had non-variceal bleeding. Univariate analysis identified 27 distinct parameters significantly associated with the types of UGIB. Logistic regression analysis identified only 3 independent factors for predicting variceal bleeding; previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease (OR 22.4, 95% CI 8.3-60.4, P < 0.001), red vomitus (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.8-11.9, P = 0.02), and red nasogastric (NG) aspirate (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3-8.3, P = 0.011). The UGIB Etiology Score was calculated from (3.1 × previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease) + (1.5 × red vomitus) + (1.2 × red NG aspirate), when 1 and 0 are used for the presence and absence of each factor, respectively. Using a cutoff ≥ 3.1, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in predicting variceal bleeding were 85%, 81%, 82%, 50%, and 96%, respectively. The score was prospectively validated in another set of 195 UGIB cases (46 variceal and 149 non-variceal bleeding). The PPV and NPV of a score ≥ 3.1 for variceal bleeding were 79% and 97%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The UGIB Etiology Score, composed of 3 parameters, using a cutoff ≥ 3.1 accurately predicted variceal bleeding and may help to guide the choice of initial therapy for UGIB before endoscopy.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage--active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot--combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.

Proton pump inhibitors: an update of their clinical use and pharmacokinetics

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent drugs of first choice for treating peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection, gastrooesophageal reflux disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal lesions (complications), and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome.

RESULTS

The available agents (omeprazole/esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole) differ somewhat in their pharmacokinetic properties (e.g., time-/dose-dependent bioavailability, metabolic pattern, interaction potential, genetic variability). For all PPIs, there is a clear relationship between drug exposure (area under the plasma concentration/time curve) and the pharmacodynamic response (inhibition of acid secretion). Furthermore, clinical outcome (e.g., healing and eradication rates) depends on maintaining intragastric pH values above certain threshold levels. Thus, any changes in drug disposition will subsequently be translated directly into clinical efficiency so that extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19 will demonstrate a higher rate of therapeutic nonresponse.

CONCLUSIONS

This update of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical data will provide the necessary guide by which to select between the various PPIs that differ-based on pharmacodynamic assessments-in their relative potencies (e.g., higher doses are needed for pantoprazole and lansoprazole compared with rabeprazole). Despite their well-documented clinical efficacy and safety, there is still a certain number of patients who are refractory to treatment with PPIs (nonresponder), which will leave sufficient space for future drug development and clinical research.

Diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is defined as bleeding proximal to ligament of Treitz. Its clinical presentations are hematemesis, melena stool, or even fresh bleeding per rectum. This paper reviews the diagnosis and treatment of upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

Selective literature review.

RESULTS

Common causes of upper GI bleeding are peptic ulcer disease, bleeding from gastroesophageal varices, angiodysplasias, and Mallory-Weiss lesions. The most important diagnostic intervention is endoscopy, which allows therapeutic interventions if needed. Peptic ulcer disease is treated endoscopically with injection therapy and endoclips. Acute bleeding from oesophageal varices is treated by banding. Endoscopic treatment is accompanied by medical treatment with proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease, and vasoactive drugs for the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices.

DISCUSSION

Modern endoscopy affords good localization of the bleeding site and successful treatment for most patients with upper GI bleeding.