Prediction of therapeutic failure in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated with endoscopic injection

Independent risk factors of 30-day outcomes in 1264 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding in the USA: large ulcers do worse

BACKGROUND

Predictors of worse outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and death) of peptic ulcer bleeds (PUBs) are essential indicators because of significant morbidity and mortality rates of PUBs. However those have been infrequently reported since changes in medical therapy (PPI, proton pump inhibitors) and application of newer endoscopic haemostatic technique.

AIMS

To determine: (i) independent risk factors for 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death and (ii) whether ulcer size is an independent predictor of major outcomes in patients with severe PUB after successful endoscopic haemostasis and treatment with optimal medical (high dose IV PPI) vs. prior treatment (high dose IV histamine 2 antagonists - H2RAs).

METHODS

A large prospectively followed population of patients hospitalised with severe PUBs between 1993 and 2011 at two US tertiary care academic medical centres, stratified by stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) was studied. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, independent risk factors for each outcome (rebleeding, surgery and death) up to 30 days were analysed. Effects for medical treatment (H2RA patients 1993-2005 vs. PPIs 2006-2011) were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1264 patients were included. For ulcers ≥10 mm, the odds of 30-day rebleeding increased 6% per each 10% increase in ulcer size (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.0053). Other risk factors for 30-day rebleeding were major SRH, in-patient start of bleeding, and prior GI bleeding. Major SRH and ulcer size≥10 mm were predictors of 30-day surgery. Risk factors for 30-day death were major SRH, in-patient bleeding, and any initial platelet transfusion or fresh frozen plasma transfusion ≥2 units. Among patients with major SRH and out-patient start of bleeding, larger ulcer size was also a risk factor for death (OR 1.08 per 10% increase in ulcer size, 95% CI 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0095). Ulcer size was a significant independent variable for both time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size is a risk factor for worse outcomes after PUB and should be carefully recorded at initial endoscopy to improve patient triage and management.

A Novel Easy-to-Use Prediction Scheme for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) Risk Score

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the leading indication for emergency endoscopy. Scoring schemes have been developed for immediate risk stratification. However, most of these scores include endoscopic findings and are based on data from patients with nonvariceal bleeding. The aim of our study was to design a pre-endoscopic score for acute UGIB--including variceal bleeding--in order to identify high-risk patients requiring urgent clinical management. The scoring system was developed using a data set consisting of 586 patients with acute UGIB. These patients were identified from the emergency department as well as all inpatient services at the University Hospital of Cologne within a 2-year period (01/2007-12/2008). Further data from a cohort of 322 patients who presented to our endoscopy unit with acute UGIB in 2009 served for external/temporal validation.Clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic parameters, as well as further data on medical history and medication were retrospectively collected from the electronic clinical documentation system. A multivariable logistic regression was fitted to the development set to obtain a risk score using recurrent bleeding, need for intervention (angiography, surgery), or death within 30 days as a composite endpoint. Finally, the obtained risk score was evaluated on the validation set. Only C-reactive protein, white blood cells, alanine-aminotransferase, thrombocytes, creatinine, and hemoglobin were identified as significant predictors for the composite endpoint. Based on the regression coefficients of these variables, an easy-to-use point scoring scheme (C-WATCH) was derived to estimate the risk of complications from 3% to 86% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.723 in the development set and 0.704 in the validation set. In the validation set, no patient in the identified low-risk group (0-1 points), but 38.7% of patients in the high-risk group (≥ 2 points) reached the composite endpoint. Our easy-to-use scoring scheme is able to distinguish high-risk patients requiring urgent endoscopy, from low-risk cases who are suitable candidates for outpatient management or in whom endoscopy may be postponed. Based on our findings, a prospective validation of the C-WATCH score in different patient populations outside the university hospital setting seems warranted.

[Incidence and predictive factors of iron deficiency anemia after acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without portal hypertension]

INTRODUCTION

There are few studies on iron deficiency anemia (IDA) after non-variceal acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients without portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To define the incidence of IDA after UGIB, to characterize the predictive factors for IDA and to design algorithms that could help physicians identify those patients who could benefit from iron therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We registered 391 patients with UGIB between April 2007 and May 2009. Patients with portal hypertension and those with clinical or/and biological conditions that could affect the ferrokinetic pattern were excluded. Blood analyses were performed, including ferric parameters upon admission, on the 5th day, and on the 30th day after the hemorrhage episode. We used a multiple logistic regression model and a classification and regression tree model.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included, of which 76 (61.3%) developed IDA 30 days after UGIB. The predictive variables were age >75 years (P=.037; OR 3.9; 95% CI: 1.3-11.6), initial urea level >80mg/dL (P=.027; OR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.1-7.6), initial ferritin level ≤65ng/dL (P=.002; OR 7.6; 95% CI: 2.9-18.5), initial hemoglobin level ≤100g/L (P=.003; OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.3-8.0), hemoglobin level on the 5th day ≤100g/L (P<.001; OR 14.9; 95% CI: 3.6-61.1) and the value of the transferrin saturation index on the 5th day <10% (p<0.001; OR 7.2; 95% CI: 2.6-20.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with UGIB developed IDA 30 days after the episode. Identification of the predictive factors for IDA may help to establish guidelines for the administration of iron therapy.

What if endoscopic hemostasis fails?: Alternative treatment strategies: surgery

Management of bleeding peptic ulcers is increasingly challenging in an aging population. Endoscopic therapy reduces the need for emergency surgery in bleeding peptic ulcers. Initial endoscopic control offers an opportunity for selecting high-risk ulcers for potential early preemptive surgery. However, such an approach has not been supported by evidence in the literature. Endoscopic retreatment can be an option to control ulcer rebleeding and reduce complications. The success of endoscopic retreatment largely depends on the severity of rebleeding and ulcer characteristics. Large chronic ulcers with urgent bleeding are less likely to respond to endoscopic retreatment. Expeditious surgery is advised.

Predictors of early rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to high-risk lesions

BACKGROUND

In an era of increasingly shortened admissions, data regarding predictors of early rebleeding among patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) exhibiting high-risk stigmata (HRS) having undergone endoscopic hemostasis are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine predictors of early rebleeding, defined as rebleeding before completion of recommended 72 h intravenous proton pump inhibitor infusion postendoscopic hemostasis.

METHODS

Data from a national registry of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (the REASON registry) were accessed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were sequentially performed to identify significant independent predictors among a comprehensive list of clinical and laboratory characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients underwent endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS. Forty patients rebled ≤72 h thereafter (32.5% female, mean [± SD] age 70.2 ± 11.8 years, 2.88 ± 2.11 comorbidities), while 21 rebled later (38.1% female, mean 70.5 ± 14.1 years of age, 2.62 ± 2.06 comorbidities). Hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate was identified as the sole independent significant predictor of early rebleeding versus later among both NVUGIB and, more specifically, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (OR 7.94 [95% CI 1.80 to 35.01]; P<0.01, and OR 8.41 [95% CI 1.54 to 46.10]; P=0.014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When attempting to determine the optimal duration of pharmacotherapy and timing of discharge for patients following endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS, it is noteworthy that individuals who present with hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate are at particularly high risk for rebleeding within the first 72 h.

Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Determining the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) may be useful for establishing additional haemostatic measures in very high-risk patients.

AIM

To identify predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches were performed to identify studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for PUB. All searches and data abstraction were performed in duplicate. A parameter was considered to be an independent predictor of rebleeding when it was detected as prognostic by multivariate analyses in ≥2 studies. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) were calculated for prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the prespecified inclusion criteria. Pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Haemodynamic instability: significant in 9 of 13 studies evaluating the variable (pOR: 3.30, 95% CI: 2.57-4.24); (ii) Haemoglobin value: significant in 2 of 10 (pOR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.62) and (iii) Transfusion: significant in two of six (pOR not calculable). Endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Active bleeding: significant in 6 of 12 studies (pOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.31-2.22); (ii) Large ulcer size: significant in 8 of 12 studies (pOR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.98-4.00); (iii) Posterior duodenal ulcer location: significant in four of eight studies (pOR: 3.83, 95% CI: 1.38-10.66) and (iv) High lesser gastric curvature ulcer location: significant in three of eight studies (pOR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.69-4.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Major predictors for rebleeding in patients receiving endoscopic therapy are haemodynamic instability, active bleeding at endoscopy, large ulcer size, ulcer location, haemoglobin value and the need for transfusion. These risk factors may be useful for guiding clinical management in patients with PUB.

Predicting poor outcome from acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

In conclusion, numerous prediction models identified pre-endoscopic and endoscopic risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage. The risk factors for mortality are different from those of rebleeding. Predictors for rebleeding are usually related to the severity of the bleeding and characteristics of the ulcer, whereas advanced age, physical status of the patient, and comorbidities are important predictors for mortality in addition to those for rebleeding. Future studies should focus on validation of these predictors in a prospective cohort and application of these prediction models to guide clinical management in patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage.

Systematic review of the predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostatic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

An increased knowledge regarding the predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers should improve clinical management and outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the strongest and most consistent predictors of rebleeding to assist in the development of tools to stratify and appropriately manage patients after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for prospective studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers were performed. Relevant studies were identified, and data were abstracted in a duplicate and independent fashion. The primary outcomes sought were significant independent predictors of rebleeding by multivariable analyses in > or =2 studies.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy was 16.4%. The independent pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were hemodynamic instability (significant in 5 of 5 studies; summary odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99-3.51) and comorbid illness (significant in 2 of 7 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range). The independent endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were active bleeding at endoscopy (significant in 5 of 8 studies; summary OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.30-2.55), large ulcer size (significant in 4 of 5 studies; summary OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21-2.80), posterior duodenal ulcer (significant in 2 of 3 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range), and lesser gastric curvature ulcer (significant in 2 of 2 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range).

CONCLUSIONS

The independent predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic therapy, particularly those that are the strongest and most consistent in the literature, may be used to select patients who are most likely to benefit from aggressive post-hemostasis care, including intensive care unit (ICU) observation and second-look endoscopy. Prospective studies designed to formally assess the relative utilities of these factors in predicting rebleeding and dictating management are needed.

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

[Gastrointestinal hemorrhage--hemorrhage from the upper digestive system]

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding represents the commonest emergency managed by gastroenterologists utilizing substantial clinical and economic resources. Manifestations of GI bleeding depend uppon its localization, magnitude and co-morbidity. Although endoscopic haemostasis has significantly improved the outcome of patients with upper GI bleeding, in some cases patients continue to bleed or rebleed after initial control requiaring early elective surgery in order to decrease mortality. Despite recent advances in, both, endoscopic and surgical therapy, mortality rates have remained essentialy unchanged at 6-15%.

A head to head comparison of oral vs intravenous omeprazole for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with a clean base, flat spots and adherent clots

AIM: To compare the effect of intravenous and oral omeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers without high-risk stigmata.

METHODS: This randomized study included 211 patients [112 receiving iv omeprazole protocol (Group 1), 99 receiving po omeprazole 40 mg every 12 h (Group 2)] with a mean age of 52.7. In 144 patients the ulcers showed a clean base, and in 46 the ulcers showed flat spots and in 21 old adherent clots. The endpoints were re-bleeding, surgery, hospital stay, blood transfusion and death. After discharge, re-bleeding and death were re-evaluated within 30 d.

RESULTS: The study groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. Re-bleeding was recorded in 5 patients of Group 1 and in 4 patients of Group 2 (P = 0.879). Three patients in Group 1 and 2 in Group 2 underwent surgery (P = 0.773). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.6 ± 1.6 d in Group 1 vs 4.5 ± 2.6 d in Group 2 (P = 0.710); the mean amounts of blood transfusion were 1.9 ± 1.1 units in Group 1 vs 2.1 ± 1.7 units in Group 2 (P = 0.350). Four patients, two in each group died (P = 0.981). After discharge, a new bleeding occurred in 2 patients of Group 1 and in 1 patient of Group 2, and one patient from Group 1 died.

CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that the effect of oral omeprazole is as effective as intravenous therapy in terms of re-bleeding, surgery, transfusion requirements, hospitalization and mortality in patients with bleeding ulcers with low risk stigmata. These patients can be treated effectively with oral omeprazole.

Continuous infusion of pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of ulcer rebleeding: a U.S. multicenter randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVES

No North American randomized study has compared ulcer rebleeding rates after endoscopic hemostasis in high-risk patients treated with high-dose intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or IV histamine-2 receptor antagonists. Our hypothesis was that ulcer rebleeding with IV pantoprazole (PAN) would be lower than with IV ranitidine (RAN).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, U.S. study. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and major stigmata of hemorrhage had endoscopic hemostasis with thermal probes with or without epinephrine injection, then were randomly assigned to IV PAN 80 mg plus 8 mg/h or IV RAN 50 mg plus 6.25 mg/h for 72 h, and subsequently had an oral PPI (1/day). Patients with signs of rebleeding had repeat endoscopy. Rebleeding rates up to 30 days were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

The study was stopped early because of slow enrollment (total N = 149, PAN 72, RAN 77). Demographics, APACHE II scores, ulcer type/location, stigmata, and hemostasis used were similar. The 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.9% (5 of 72 patients) with PAN and 14.3% (11 of 77) for RAN (p= 0.19). Rebleeds occurred within 72 h in 56% and between 4 and 7 days in 44% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 4%. Nonbleeding severe adverse events were more common in the RAN than in the PAN group (14 [18.1%]vs 7 [9.7%], p= 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the small sample size of this study, there was an arithmetic but not significant difference in ulcer rebleeding rates.

Treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE

The etiology, pathophysiology, prognostic factors, pharmacologic treatment, and pharmacoeconomic considerations of nonvariceal upper-gastrointestinal-tract bleeding (UGB) are reviewed.

SUMMARY

UGB is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. While UGB can be caused by a wide variety of medical conditions, 50% of UGB cases are caused by peptic ulcers. Approximately 80% of all UGB episodes stop bleeding spontaneously. Recurrence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage is associated with an increased mortality rate, a greater need for surgery, blood transfusions, a prolonged length of hospital stay, and increased overall health care costs. All patients with UGB should be evaluated for signs and symptoms of hemodynamic instability and active hemorrhage. Endoscopy within the first 24 hours of a UGB episode is considered the standard of therapy for the management of the initial hemorrhage. However, approximately 20% of patients will experience a rebleeding episode. Acid-suppressive therapy with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) in addition to endoscopic hemostasis is effective in reducing the frequency of rebleeding, the need for surgery, transfusion requirements, and the length of hospital stay, but not mortality rates. There are multiple dosing options for administration of PPIs in this setting. More studies are necessary to elucidate the best therapeutic approach to manage UGB.

CONCLUSION

Acid-suppressive therapy is beneficial in the management of UGB. It reduces the frequency of rebleeding, the need for surgery, transfusion requirements, and the length of hospital stay. To date, no pharmacologic intervention has demonstrated a reduction in the mortality rates of patients with UGB. An optimal acid-suppressive regimen has not yet been clearly established.

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.

A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection

BACKGROUND

Outpatient management is safe for patients with non-variceal upper-GI bleeding who are at low risk of recurrent bleeding and death. However, outpatient care cannot be offered to many patients because of the presence of risk factors (severe comorbid disorders, major endoscopic stigmata of bleeding, significant hemorrhage). The present study assessed the safety of outpatient management for selected high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized with upper-GI bleeding because of peptic ulcer with a non-bleeding vessel were eligible for inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were the following: ulcer size less than 15 mm, absence of hypovolemia, no associated severe disease, and appropriate family support. After endoscopic therapy (injection of epinephrine and polidocanol), patients were randomized to outpatient or hospital care. Patients remained in the emergency ward for a minimum of 6 hours before discharge, during which time omeprazole was administered intravenously. Outpatients were contacted by telephone daily during the first 3 days; a 24-hour telephone hotline was provided for any queries. For both groups, outpatient visits were scheduled at 7 to 10 and 30 days after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients were included: 40 were randomized to outpatient care and 42 to hospital care. Clinical and endoscopic variables were similar in both groups. The rate of recurrent bleeding was similar in both groups (4.8% outpatient, 5% hospital). There was no morbidity or mortality in either group at 30 days. Seven patients (17%) randomized to outpatient care received blood transfusion compared with 14 (38%) in the hospital care group (p=0.06). Mean cost of care per patient was significantly lower for the outpatient vs. the hospital group (970 US dollars vs. 1595 US dollars; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Selected patients with bleeding peptic ulcer can be safely managed as outpatients after endoscopic therapy. This policy conserves health care resources without compromising standards of care.

Adrenaline plus cyanoacrylate injection for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers after failure of conventional endoscopic haemostasis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy is a safe and effective method for treating non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However failure of therapy, in terms of continuing bleeding or rebleeding, is seen in up to 20%. Cyanoacrylate is a tissue glue used for variceal bleeding that has occasionally been reported as an alternative haemostatic technique in non-variceal haemorrhage.

AIM

To retrospectively describe personal experience using cyanoacrylate injection in the management of bleeding ulcers after failure of first-line endoscopic modalities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1995 and March 1998, 18 [12 M/6 F, mean age 68.1 years) out of 176 patients, referred to our Unit for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, were treated with intralesional injection of adrenaline plus undiluted cyanoacrylate. Persistent bleeding after endoscopic haemostasis or early rebleeding were the indications for cyanoacrylate treatment.

RESULTS

Definitive haemostasis was achieved in 17 out of 18 patients treated with cyanoacrylate. One patient needed surgery. No early or late rebleeding occurred during the follow-up. No complications or instrument lesions related to cyanoacrylate were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective series, cyanoacrylate plus adrenaline injection was found to be a potentially safe and effective alternative to endoscopic haemostasis when conventional treatment modalities fail in controlling bleeding from gastroduodenal ulcers.

Epinephrine versus epinephrine plus fibrin glue injection in peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a disease with considerable morbidity and mortality. Epinephrine is the most widely used endoscopic injection agent, but bleeding recurs in 20% of high-risk cases. Fibrin glue might be an ideal injection agent, based on its physiologic properties, despite its demanding injection technique and high cost. The aim of this study was to determine whether the injection of fibrin glue in combination with epinephrine improves outcome for patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively randomized to injection of epinephrine alone (n = 70) or epinephrine plus fibrin glue (n = 65). Endoscopy was repeated daily until the ulcer base was clean. All patients were treated with high-dose omeprazole.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was 100% in both groups. There was no significant overall difference in rates of recurrent bleeding (24.3% and 21.5%, respectively, for epinephrine and epinephrine plus fibrin). When patients were stratified according to Forrest criteria, no significant difference could be found, although there was a trend toward less recurrent bleeding after fibrin injection of actively bleeding ulcers. There was no significant difference in the proportions of patients who required surgery (10% and 6%, respectively, for epinephrine and epinephrine plus fibrin). Mortality was the same (3%) in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding fibrin glue to epinephrine for injection treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers does not improve outcome. Fibrin glue might be of some value in selected cases.

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding of Nonvariceal Origin in the ICU Setting

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGI) is a common medical emergency in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although it can be caused by a number of gastrointestinal disorders, its management usually follows a few simple management rules. Prior to endoscopy, the key to management is to resuscitate the patient, to determine the need for airway protection, and to assess the need for transfusions according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. During endoscopy, the key to management is to recognize the cause of the bleeding and to achieve hemostasis. Following endoscopy, the key to management is to determine the need for medical therapy and to determine a proper disposition for the patient given his potential risk for rebleeding. Stress-related erosions syndrome (SRES) is a disease that usually develops in the ICU setting and is known to be associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Although it is approached in the same fashion as other causes of UGI bleeding, patients tend to do better if they are recognized early and treated prophylactically. Criteria for proper patient selection and the recommended prophylactic therapy are reviewed.

Surgery in the acute management of bleeding peptic ulcer

The management of bleeding peptic ulcers is an increasing challenge in an ageing population. Endoscopic therapy reduces the need for emergency surgery in bleeding peptic ulcers, and ulcers that fail endoscopic therapy are often 'difficult' ulcers, highly demanding for most gastric surgeons. Mortality in patients requiring eventual salvage surgery is high. Planned urgent surgery is preferable to emergency surgery in elderly patients. Initial endoscopic control offers an opportunity for selecting high-risk ulcers for early surgery. Such a logical approach has, however, not been supported by evidence in the literature. At surgery, an aggressive approach is recommended. Post-operative bleeding is more common after lesser surgery, and this complication is often fatal. When re-bleeding occurs, a selective approach is suggested as emergency surgery carries with it a substantial mortality. Large chronic ulcers with exigent bleeding are less likely to respond to endoscopic re-treatment. Expedient surgery is advised for these patients.

Clinical scoring systems for determining the prognosis of gastrointestinal bleeding

The prognosis of GI bleeding depends upon many factors. Patients should be evaluated carefully for risk factors. To avoid complications from GI bleeding, triage should be performed promptly after patient presentation. The history and physical examination should emphasize analysis of risk factors for severe GI bleeding and mortality. Factors that increase the morbidity and mortality include: age greater than 60 years; underlying comorbidity such as pulmonary diseases, liver diseases, renal diseases, encephalopathy, or cancer; physiologic stress from major surgery, trauma, or sepsis; coexisting disease in three organ systems; low hematocrit; melena or hematochezia; and prolonged prothrombin time. Hospitalized patients who require more than five units of packed erythrocytes transfusion or who develop hypotension or hypovolemic shock are more likely to need surgery. Patients with a high APACHE II score, the presence of esophageal varices, active bleeding, or other endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage are more likely to rebleed and undergo surgery. The proliferation of multivariable prognostic scales, as described herein, provides ample evidence that the goal of developing a single comprehensive multivariable scale to accurately assess severity of disease and to determine prognosis of GI bleeding is still not achieved. Yet significant progress has occurred in this field, leading to the hope of developing a universally applicable multivariable scale.

Injection therapy for endoscopic haemostasis

Endoscopic injection is widely used for the arrest of active ulcer bleeding and for prevention of re-bleeding from ulcers with visible vessels. Although of proven value in clinical trials, mechanisms of action are unclear; tamponade, vasoconstriction, endarteritis and a direct effect upon the clotting process at the site of the arterial defect have been proposed. Clinical trials show that dilute adrenaline is an effective agent and that the addition of sclerosants or alcohol confirms no extra benefit, yet risks serious side-effects. The best results are associated with injection of fibrin glue or thrombin which stimulate formation of a stable blood clot. The efficacy of injection, thermal modalities such as the heater probe and electrocoagulation using BICAP are comparable. In general, there is an advantage in combining injection with a thermal modality, although this may have merit in patients with severe, active ulcer bleeding. Patients who re-bleed following successful primary haemostatic injection treatment can be considered for further endoscopic intervention, but the decision to undertake a surgical operation or repeat endoscopic therapy is a matter of clinical judgement.

Value of stigmata in decision-making in gastrointestinal haemorrhage

The stigmata of recent haemorrhage are endoscopically identified features that have a predictive value for the risk of further bleeding and thus help to determine which patients should receive endoscopic therapy. In conjunction with endoscopic features, clinical features related to the magnitude of bleeding and to patient co-morbidity have important independent effects on the risk of further haemorrhage. Stigmata have been best studied in the context of bleeding ulcers, the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Stigmata in ulcers are usually classified as active bleeding (spurting or oozing), a non-bleeding visible vessel, an adherent clot, a flat pigmented spot, or a clean base, in order of decreasing risk of further haemorrhage. Ulcer size and location may also affect the re-bleeding potential. Recent data suggest that both non-pigmented visible vessels and adherent clots have a higher risk of re-bleeding than was previously thought. The wide variation in prevalence and re-bleeding rates reported for various stigmata in the literature probably reflects variations in the definitions of stigmata and of re-bleeding, the vigour with which the ulcer bases are washed, the co-morbidity and ages of the patients, and the severity of bleeding encountered. Inter-observer agreement in the classification of stigmata is relatively poor and limits the utility of endoscopic features alone in making decisions regarding the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Imaging devices such as Doppler probes are being evaluated to refine the identification of underlying vessels and their re-bleeding potential, but the utility of these is currently uncertain. The findings of low-risk endoscopic stigmata in a haemodynamically and otherwise stable patient can in many cases allow out-patient management.

Predictive factors for rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after multipolar electrocoagulation: a retrospective analysis

The role of endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding is well-documented. Nevertheless, rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of patients, and such patients are at high risk for death without early retreatment or definitive surgery. The aim of our study was to predict which patients would rebleed within 1 month after successful multipolar electrocoagulation of 100 patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding (spurting, oozing, or nonbleeding visible vessel). We had achieved initial hemostasis in 97 patients and carried out univariate and multivariate analyses to predict which patients would rebleed. Rebleeding occurred within 1 month in 17 (17.5%) patients. we correlated 20 clinical and endoscopic factors with rebleeding episodes. With univariate analysis, blood transfusion of 500 ml or more at entry (p < 0.0001) and use of cimetidine (p = 0.01) were statistically significant for rebleeding. With multivariate analysis, use of omeprazole was an independent factor for preventing rebleeding (odds ratio, 7.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.642-35.929). We suggest that omeprazole may help to prevent rebleeding in patients who have had hemostasis with multipolar electrocoagulation.

Randomized trial of endoscopic injection sclerosis with ethanolamine oleate and ethanol for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been done comparing ethanolamine oleate injection therapy with other sclerosing agents. Between September 1992 and August 1995, 78 consecutive patients presenting with a high-risk bleeding ulcer were randomized in a trial comparing endoscopic injection sclerotherapies with ethanolamine oleate and absolute ethanol.

METHODS

The groups were well matched in terms of sex, age, clinical features, endoscopic findings, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug usage. We recorded in a prospective randomized trial the initial success of endoscopy, the rebleeding rate, permanent hemostasis, treatment failures, the need for surgery, mortality, and factors related to mortality.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 90% (38 of 42) of the ethanolamine oleate group and in 97% (35 of 36) of the ethanol group, and permanent hemostasis in 88% (37 of 42) and 92% (33 of 36), respectively. The rebleeding rate, 7% and 8%; the emergency surgery rate, 10% and 6%; the transfusion requirement, 4.8 +/- 3.3 units and 4.0 +/- 3.0 units; and the 30-day mortality, 12% and 3%, did not differ significantly between the ethanolamine oleate and ethanol groups. Mortality was significantly related to shock at admission, duodenal site of the ulcer, ulcer size greater than 2 cm, and blood transfusion of over 5 units.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapies using ethanolamine oleate or absolute ethanol are safe and equally effective for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Factors related to the failure of endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding gastric ulcer

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic injection therapy is effective in controlling initial haemorrhage from peptic ulcer, between 10% to 30% of patients suffer rebleeding.

AIM

To assess the factors that may predict the failure of endoscopic injection in patients bleeding from high risk gastric ulcer.

SUBJECTS

One hundred and seventy eight patients admitted for a gastric ulcer with a bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were included.

METHODS

Patients received endoscopic therapy by injection for adrenaline and polidocanol. Twelve clinical and endoscopic variables were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to ascertain their significance as predictive factor of therapeutic failure.

RESULTS

Eighty seven per cent (155 of 178) of patients had no further bleeding after endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic injection failed in 23 (13%) patients: 20 (12%) continued to bleed or rebleed, and three (1%) patients could not be treated because of inaccessibility of the lesion. Logistic regression analysis showed that therapeutic failure was significantly related to: (1) the presence of hypovolaemic shock (p = 0.09, OR 2.38, 95% CI: 0.86, 6.56), (2) the presence of active bleeding at endoscopy (p = 0.02, OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.12, 7.91), (3) ulcer location high on the lesser curvature (p = 0.04, OR 2.79, 95% CI: 1.01, 7.69), and (4) ulcer size larger than 2 cm (p = 0.01, OR 3.64, 95% CI: 1.34, 9.89).

CONCLUSION

These variables may enable identification of those patients bleeding from gastric ulcer who would not benefit from injection therapy.

Role of endoscopic injection therapy in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer

Of patients with peptic ulceration who are actively bleeding at endoscopy, 80 per cent will continue to bleed or rebleed in hospital; 50 per cent of those who have a non-bleeding visible vessel will also rebleed. Endoscopic injection treatment stops active bleeding and prevents further haemorrhage in most of these patients. The mechanism of action may include tamponade, vasoconstriction, sclerosis, tissue dehydration and thrombogenesis; substances injected include adrenaline, sclerosants, alcohol, thrombin, or a combination of agents. Although trials often define the need for surgery as an injection treatment failure, an alternative view is that endoscopic control may facilitate safe, early, elective surgery. A successful outcome may require a combination of endoscopic and operative approaches.

Factors predicting failure of endoscopic injection therapy in bleeding duodenal ulcer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the factors that may cause failure of endoscopic injection in patients bleeding from a duodenal ulcer.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients admitted for a bleeding duodenal ulcer with active arterial hemorrhage or a nonbleeding visible vessel were included.

RESULTS

Endoscopic injection was not feasible in 14 of 120 (11.6%) patients because of inaccessibility or massive hemorrhage. The remaining 106 patients underwent endoscopic therapy by injection of adrenaline and polidocanol. The efficacy (achievement of definitive hemostasis) of endoscopy therapy was 83% (88 of 106). Univariate analysis showed that failure of endoscopic injection was related to age, presence of shock, ulcer size greater than 2 cm, and hemoglobin level. Multivariate analysis showed that ulcer size greater than 2 cm (p = 0.005) and the presence of shock (p = 0.03) were factors predictive of endoscopic treatment failure. Failure to achieve hemostasis (p < 0.001) and poor physical status measured by American Society of Anesthesiology classification (p = 0.02) were significantly related to mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size and severity of hemorrhage are predictive of endoscopic injection failure in patients bleeding from high-risk duodenal ulcers. Survival is determined by clinical status and associated diseases.

A cost-effective approach to the patient with peptic ulcer bleeding

The average hospital cost to manage patients hospitalized at Virginia Mason Hospital who bleed from a peptic ulcer is approximately $5000 per patient in our series of 30 patients. Because there are 150,000 admissions per year in the United States for peptic ulcer bleeding, the total hospital cost can be estimated to be $750 million. The actual cost may be higher because our 30 patients had minimal complications and were discharged on average in less than 4 days. The majority of hospital cost is incurred by the intensive care unit or the hospital nursing floor. There is a close to linear relation between the length of stay and the total hospital cost. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a major advance in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. It can provide significant cost savings by identifying some patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who have clean bases on endoscopy who are then eligible for prompt discharge from the hospital. In addition, endoscopic thermal therapy (with multipolar electrocautery or heater probe) and injection therapy cost less than $50 in incremental cost and can reduce further bleeding by 43%, reduce the need for urgent surgery by 63%, and reduce the mortality rate by 60%. Some patients still require urgent surgical intervention, which is substantially more costly than endoscopic hemostasis but is highly effective. Preliminary studies show promise in predicting further bleeding, with clinical scoring systems such as the Baylor Bleeding Score and with the use of Doppler ultrasonography. Better prediction of further bleeding should guide the choice of durable hemostasis early in the hospitalization. Additional studies should clarify the role of NSAID avoidance and H. pylori eradication in the long-term prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

A review on treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer: a collaborative task of gastroenterologist and surgeon

The majority of patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage bleed from peptic diseases erosive gastritis and duodenal or gastric ulcers. Early gastroscopy is essential in order to reach a diagnosis, assess the prognosis, and institute appropriate therapy. In a meta-analysis it was shown that H2-antagonists significantly reduced mortality. However, two large, prospective and placebo-controlled studies with famotidine and omeprazole failed to show reduction of rebleeding or death. The value of endoscopic haemostatic therapy in patients with high-risk peptic ulcers (active bleeding and non-bleeding visible vessel) has been firmly established with 75% decrease in rebleeding and operation rate, and a 40% reduction in mortality. Risk factors for an adverse outcome are: elderly patients, concomitant diseases and large ulcers in the posterior duodenal bulb or on the lesser curvature. The mortality for emergency surgery in upper GI bleeding is still 10-50%. The mortality of elective operations is less than 2%. Some studies have reduced mortality by avoiding emergency surgery through early elective surgery in high-risk patients.