Intravenous versus high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy after endoscopic hemostasis of high-risk lesions in patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

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.

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Pharmacologic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are many clinical outcome measures for evaluation of the effectiveness of a pharmacologic agent in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). As a preemptive treatment, it should reduce the need for emergency endoscopy and endoscopic intervention, facilitate the efficient identification of the bleeding source and, hence, shorten procedure time and reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. As an effective adjunctive therapy after endoscopic hemostasis, it should reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding and the need to repeat endoscopic hemostasis. This article provides an overview of different pharmacologic agents that have been used in the management of UGIB.

Analysis of computer alerts suggesting oral medication use during computerized order entry of i.v. medications

PURPOSE

Compliance with computer alerts suggesting oral medication use during computerized order entry of i.v. medications was analyzed.

SUMMARY

Using automated computerized clinical decision support (CDS) to suggest converting i.v. medications to oral alternatives can reduce medication costs for hospitalized patients, but prescriber noncompliance limits the effectiveness of such interventions. Clearer understanding of the factors associated with noncompliance to alerts may facilitate the design of more effective CDS systems. Electronic medical record data were retrospectively analyzed to measure the rate of compliance with a CDS alert that suggested converting to an equivalent oral form of a drug at the time of ordering the i.v. formulation. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the associations among medication type, clinician characteristics, hospital service type, time of order, and compliance with the i.v.-to-oral conversion recommendation. The main outcome was compliance with the alert, measured at the level of the individual medication order. The mean +/- S.E. overall compliance rate was 18.7% +/- 0.6%. Compliance varied among the medications, with methyl-prednisolone having the lowest (8%) and famotidine the highest (32%) (p < 0.05). Nurses had the highest compliance rate (35%) while pharmacists had the lowest (10%) (p < 0.05). Medical house staff (19%) and medical faculty (21%) complied at similar rates. The intensive care units had lower compliance rates than did the medical-surgical ward (15% versus 21%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CDS alerts to convert 12 i.v. medications to oral alternatives were developed and implemented in an urban tertiary hospital. Compliance rates for the alerts were relatively low and varied by medication, location, and clinician type.

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.

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.

Effect of oral lansoprazole on intragastric pH after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) induce a high intragastric pH and may thereby improve haemostasis in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a similar therapeutic intragastric pH level could be reached when the PPI was administered orally.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH was measured in patients treated endoscopically for bleeding peptic ulcer (Forrest class I or II). The patients received lansoprazole capsules (90 mg) after successful endoscopic treatment, followed by 30 mg every third hour for 72 h. The primary end-point was the percentage of the 0 to 24-h registration period with an intragastric pH of 6 or higher. Additionally, the total number of patients obtaining an intragastric pH above 6 for 80% or more of the 0 to 24-h period after start of treatment was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 14 patients included in the study (4 F, mean age 74 years, range 50-84 years), 10 patients had duodenal ulcer and 4 had gastric ulcer; median lowest Hgb: 8.9 mg/ml (range 5.8-12.4), blood transfusions: 2.7 SAG units (range 0-7). In the 0 to 24-h period, the median time duration of pH above 6 was 55% (range 6-99). One out of 14 patients (7%) reached a pH above 6 in at least 80% of this time period.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in intragastric pH of therapeutic importance was reached with this oral medication regimen. However, there were large intra-individual differences. Treatment with oral lansoprazole may be a therapeutic alternative to intravenous administration of PPI.

Introducing a clinical pathway for acute peptic ulcer bleeding in general internal medicine wards

OBJECTIVE

Management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is expensive and there is little evidence to prove the cost-effectiveness of a clinical pathway. The purpose of this study was to introduce a clinical pathway in hospitalized patients with acute PUB to evaluate its impact on costs and other outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The clinical pathway was designed for and implemented in hospitalized patients, and a physicians reminder system that included chief residents, checklists, and case review meetings was also utilized. Use of medicine for acid suppression, length of hospital stay (LOS), and treatment costs were compared between patients before and after implementation of the clinical pathway. Outcome measures included the rate of recurrent bleeding, rate of repeat upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, and rate of readmission within 30 days of discharge.

RESULTS

This clinical pathway significantly reduced the use of intravenous medicine for acid suppression from 88% to 34%, with mean LOS down from 6.7 to 3.6 days, mean cost of medications decreased from New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) 8768 to NTD 3940 (cost down 55.1%), mean cost of diagnostic tests lowered from NTD 12,560 to NTD 9493 (cost down 24.4%), and mean total hospital cost down from NTD 33,142 to NTD 19,519 (cost down 41.1%). Outcome measures were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of a clinical pathway is an effective method for reducing costs while maintaining quality of care in the management of PUB.

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 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 prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was undertaken according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model using CENTRAL, (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings up to September 2005. The literature search was re-run in February 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised patients with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Types of interventions: Active treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo or an histamine-(2) receptor antagonist (H(2)RA). Types of outcome measures: Assessed at 30 days: mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers assessed the eligibility criteria of each study and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs were included for review. No further RCTS were identified in an updated literature search. Four trials comprising a total of 1512 patients in total reported data for all randomised patients. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). 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 patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy; pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). For the continuous outcomes, namely length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements, quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.