Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Preclinical study of a novel ingestible bleeding sensor for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a life-threatening condition that necessitates early identification and intervention and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic burden. However, several diagnostic challenges remain regarding risk stratification and the optimal timing of endoscopy. The PillSense System is a noninvasive device developed to detect blood in patients with UGIB in real time. This study aimed to assess the safety and performance characteristics of PillSense using a simulated bleeding model.

METHODS

A preclinical study was performed using an in vivo porcine model (14 animals). Fourteen PillSense capsules were endoscopically placed in the stomach and blood was injected into the stomach to simulate bleeding. The safety and sensitivity of blood detection and pill excretion were also investigated.

RESULTS

All the sensors successfully detected the presence or absence of blood. The minimum threshold was 9% blood concentration, with additional detection of increasing concentrations of up to 22.5% blood. All the sensors passed naturally through the gastrointestinal tract.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the ability of the PillSense System sensor to detect UGIB across a wide range of blood concentrations. This ingestible device detects UGIB in real time and has the potential to be an effective tool to supplement the current standard of care. These favorable results will be further investigated in future clinical studies.

The Additive Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Actively Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Background/Aims

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) enhances tissue repair, and is therefore used in various medical treatments. A combination of mechanical or electrothermal hemostasis has been recommended for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding treatment. This study evaluated the additive efficacy of PRP in bleeding peptic ulcer hemostasis and recovery.

Methods

Eighty patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were initially treated by hemoclipping, and were randomly chosen for either additional PRP (n=40) or additional epinephrine (n=40) injections. Both groups were compared with regard to achieving hemostasis and the frequency of complications.

Results

Hemostasis was immediately achieved in both groups. Two patients (5%) in the PRP group and 8 (20%) patients in the epinephrine group experienced rebleeding after 15.9±2.8 and 12.3±3.7 days, respectively. They were managed by PRP injection in addition to proton pump inhibitor infusion. Hemoglobin was substantially increased in the PRP-treated group with full recovery occurring in 60.5% compared to 31.3% of patients in the epinephrine group (p=0.001). There was no recurrent bleeding in the PRP group, but 4/32 (12.5%) patients in the epinephrine group exhibited rebleeding.

Conclusions

PRP showed additional benefit in reducing peptic ulcer bleeding with no reported significant complications. Clinical trial (NCT03733171).

Swallowable fluorometric capsule for wireless triage of gastrointestinal bleeding

Real-time detection of gastrointestinal bleeding remains a major challenge because there does not yet exist a minimally invasive technology that can both i) monitor for blood from an active hemorrhage and ii) uniquely distinguish it from blood left over from an inactive hemorrhage. Such a device would be an important tool for clinical triage. One promising solution, which we have proposed previously, is to inject a fluorescent dye into the blood stream and to use it as a distinctive marker of active bleeding by monitoring leakage into the gastrointestinal tract with a wireless fluorometer. This paper reports, for the first time to our knowledge, the development of a swallowable, wireless capsule with a built-in fluorometer capable of detecting fluorescein in blood, and intended for monitoring gastrointestinal bleeding in the stomach. The embedded, compact fluorometer uses pinholes to define a microliter sensing volume and to eliminate bulky optical components. The proof-of-concept capsule integrates optics, low-noise analog sensing electronics, a microcontroller, battery, and low power Zigbee radio, all into a cylindrical package measuring 11 mm × 27 mm and weighing 10 g. Bench-top experiments demonstrate wireless fluorometry with a limit-of-detection of 20 nM aqueous fluorescein. This device represents a major step towards a technology that would enable simple, rapid detection of active gastrointestinal bleeding, a capability that would save precious time and resources and, ultimately, reduce complications in patients.

Endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer represents the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this review is to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, and CINAHL. We selected randomized clinical trials that assessed contemporary endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The outcomes evaluated were: initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality. The possibility of publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots. An additional analysis was made, including only the higher-quality trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 2988 patients were evaluated. Injection therapy alone was inferior to injection therapy with hemoclip and with thermal coagulation when evaluating rebleeding and the need for emergency surgery. Hemoclip was superior to injection therapy in terms of rebleeding; there were no statistically significant differences between hemoclip alone and hemoclip with injection therapy. There was considerable heterogeneity in the comparisons between hemoclip and thermal coagulation. There were no statistically significant differences between thermal coagulation and injection therapy, though their combination was superior, in terms of rebleeding, to thermal coagulation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection therapy should not be used alone. Hemoclip is superior to injection therapy, and combining hemoclip with an injectate does not improve hemostatic efficacy above hemoclip alone. Thermal coagulation has similar efficacy as injection therapy; combining these appears to be superior to thermal coagulation alone. Therefore, we recommend the application of hemoclips or the combined use of injection therapy with thermal coagulation for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Injection and Cautery Methods for Nonvariceal Bleeding Control

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains one of the most common challenges faced by gastroenterologists and endoscopists in daily clinical practice. Endoscopic management of nonvariceal bleeding has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, with significant reduction of recurrent bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. Early upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is recommended in all patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding within 24 hours of presentation, although appropriate resuscitation, stabilization of hemodynamic parameters, and optimization of comorbidity before endoscopy are essential.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Endoscopic injection of autologous blood versus diluted epinephrine for control of actively bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers: a randomized-controlled study

INTRODUCTION

A preliminary report showed that autologous blood is an effective and easily applicable technique that can control actively bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers. The aim of this study was to test whether an endoscopic injection of autologous blood is comparable to an endoscopic injection of diluted epinephrine in controlling bleeding from gastroduodenal ulcers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients with actively bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers were assigned randomly to either an autologous blood injection (group A, n=50) or a diluted epinephrine injection (group B, n=50) along the edges of the ulcers. Groups were compared for rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and complications.

RESULTS

All patients initially achieved hemostasis (100%). Rebleeding occurred in four patients from group A (8%) and five patients from group B (10%). Two patients in group B developed cardiovascular complications (arrhythmia and ischemic heart attack), whereas none in group A developed complications.

CONCLUSION

Autologous blood is effective, comparable to diluted epinephrine in achieving initial hemostasis from actively bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, associated with an 8% rebleeding rate, and led to no complications.

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

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

Chronic kidney disease, hemodynamic instability, and endoscopic high-risk appearance are associated with 30-day rebleeding in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The results of studies that evaluated predictive factors for rebleeding in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to investigate predictive factors for 30-day rebleeding in these patients. A consecutive 312 patients presenting symptoms and signs of gastrointestinal bleeding were enrolled in this prospective, observational study. Clinical and demographic characteristics and endoscopic findings were evaluated for potential factors associated with 30-day rebleeding using logistic regression analysis. Overall, 176 patients were included (male, 80.1%; mean age, 59.7±16.0 yr). Rebleeding within 7 and 30 days occurred in 21 (11.9%) and 27 (15.3%) patients, respectively. We found that chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR, 10.29; 95% CI, 2.84-37.33; P<0.001), tachycardia (pulse>100 beats/min) during the admission (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.25-11.49; P=0.019), and Forrest classes I, IIa, and IIb (OR, 6.14; 95% CI, 1.36-27.66; P=0.018) were significant independent predictive factors for 30-day rebleeding. However, neither Rockall nor Blatchford scores showed statistically significant relationships with 30-day rebleeding in a multivariate analysis. CKD, hemodynamic instability during hospitalization, and an endoscopic high-risk appearance are significantly independent predictors of 30-day rebleeding in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These factors may be useful for clinical management of such patients.

An implantable wireless biosensor for the immediate detection of upper GI bleeding: a new fluorescein-based tool for diagnosis and surveillance (with video)

BACKGROUND

Early recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic intervention for acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) can approach 20% and leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Little has changed over the past several decades regarding immediate posthemorrhage surveillance, and there has likewise been no significant improvement in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test an endoscopically implantable wireless biosensor for real-time detection of fluorescein-labeled blood in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models of UGIB.

SETTING

Animal laboratory.

DESIGN

Benchtop and acute animal studies.

SUBJECTS

Five pigs.

INTERVENTIONS

UGIB models were surgically created in living pigs. Biosensors were endoscopically deployed in the stomach using standard endoscopic clips. The ability to detect acute UGIB and estimated blood loss leading to biosensor activation were recorded. Feasibility of wireless data transmission out of the body to an external computer and cell phone was assessed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical feasibility and immediate complications.

RESULTS

A porcine UGIB model was successfully created. Biosensors were able to detect all acute bleeding events and wirelessly transmit out of the body, and successfully sent an emergency text message to the intended cell phone in all cases. Average estimated blood loss leading to biosensor activation was 30 mL (10-75 mL).

LIMITATIONS

Animal study; small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopically implantable wireless biosensor successfully detected acute hemorrhage in a porcine UGIB model and sent an emergency cell-phone alert in real time.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.

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.

Melaena with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a case report

Introduction

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is a rare familial disorder characterised by mucocutaneous pigmentation, gastrointestinal and extragastrointestinal hamartomatous polyps and an increased risk of malignancy. Peutz-Jeghers polyps in the bowel may result in intussusception. This complication usually manifests with abdominal pain and signs of intestinal obstruction.

Case Presentation

We report the case of a 24-year-old Caucasian male who presented with melaena. Pigmentation of the buccal mucosa was noted but he was pain-free and examination of the abdomen was unremarkable. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed multiple polyps. An urgent abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed multiple small bowel intussusceptions. Laparotomy was undertaken on our patient, reducing the intussusceptions and removing the polyps by enterotomies. Bowel resection was not needed.

Conclusion

Melaena in PJS needs to be urgently investigated through a CT scan even in the absence of abdominal pain and when clinical examination of the abdomen shows normal findings. Although rare, the underlying cause could be intussusception, which if missed could result in grave consequences.

Stress-induced ulcer bleeding in critically ill patients

Increased knowledge of risk factors and improved ICU care has decreased the incidence of stress-related bleeding. Not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis for SRMD and withholding such prophylaxis in suitable low-risk candidates is a reasonable and cost-effective approach. Mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and coagulopathy are the main risk factors for stress-induced upper GI bleeding. Although intravenous H2RAs can prevent clinically important bleeding, their benefits seem to be limited by the rapid development of tolerance. The availability of intravenous formulations of PPIs makes it possible to critically compare their prophylactic efficacy and safety to different classes of acid-suppressive agents, such as H2RAs, in critically ill patients. The appropriate dose of PPI and the role of newer PPI formulations need to be further defined along with proposed guidelines for the use of intravenous and oral/enteral formulations of PPIs in patients at risk for stress-related mucosal damage.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 1763 people were included. Adding a second procedure reduced further bleeding rate from 18.8% to 10.4%; Peto Odds Ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.66, and emergency surgery from 10.8% to 7.1%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89. Mortality fell from 5% to 2.5% OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82. Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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