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

Over-the-Scope Clips Are More Effective Than Standard Endoscopic Therapy for Patients With Recurrent Bleeding of Peptic Ulcers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic hemostasis is effective in treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. However, rebleeding is difficult to treat and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. We performed a prospective randomized trial to determine whether over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) are more effective than standard treatment of severe recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We performed our study at 9 academic referral centers (in Germany, Switzerland, and Hong Kong) from March 2013 through September 2016. Adult patients with recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding following initially successful hemostasis (66 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis) were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) that underwent hemostasis with either OTSC or standard therapy. Standard therapy was defined as hemostasis with through-the-scope clips (TTSC, n = 31) or thermal therapy plus injection with diluted adrenaline (n = 2). The primary endpoint was further bleeding (a composite endpoint of a persistent bleeding despite endoscopic therapy according to the protocol or recurrent bleeding within 7 days after successful hemostasis). Patients with further bleeding were allowed to cross over to OTSC therapy. Main secondary endpoints were mortality, necessity of surgical or angiographic salvage therapy, duration of stay in the hospital or intensive care, number of blood units transfused, and complications associated with endoscopic therapy.

RESULTS

Persistent bleeding after per-protocol hemostasis was observed in 14 patients (42.4%) in the standard therapy group and 2 patients (6.0%) in the OTSC group (P = .001). Recurrent bleeding within 7 days occurred in 5 patients (16.1%) in the standard therapy group vs 3 patients (9.1%) in the OTSC group (P = .468). Further bleeding occurred in 19 patients (57.6%) in the standard therapy group and in 5 patients (15.2%) in the OTSC group (absolute difference 42.4%; 95% confidence interval 21.6-63.2; P = .001) Within 30 days of follow-up, 1 patient in the standard therapy group (3.0%) and 1 patient in the OTSC group (3.0%) required surgical therapy (P = .999). Within 30 days of the procedure, 2 patients died in the standard therapy group (6.3%) and 4 patients died in the OTSC group (12.1%) (P = .672). There were no significant differences in the other secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

In prospective randomized trial, we found endoscopic treatment with OTSCs to be superior to standard therapy with TTSCs for patients with recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. STING Study, Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT1836900.

A Randomized Trial of Monopolar Soft-mode Coagulation Versus Heater Probe Thermocoagulation for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Thermal coagulation is one of the most commonly used methods, with a high success rate. Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric carcinoma was developed and hemostasis with soft coagulation using hemostatic forceps was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the hemostatic efficacy of soft coagulation with heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients who visited our hospital with hematemesis or melena underwent emergency endoscopy. Inclusion criteria were presentation with an actively bleeding ulcer, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or an adherent clot. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to give written informed consent or had a bleeding gastric malignancy. Patients were randomized to receive endoscopic hemostasis with soft coagulation (Group S) or heater probe thermocoagulation (Group H). The primary endpoint was the primary hemostasis rate and secondary endpoints were rebleeding rate, complications, and the procedure time.

RESULTS

Between May 2010 and February 2012, a total of 111 patients (89 gastric ulcers and 22 duodenal ulcers) were enrolled. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 54 patients (96%) in Group S and 37 (67%) in Group H (P<0.0001). Rebleeding occurred in 7 patients in Group H and none in Group S. Of these 7 patients, urgent surgery was performed in 1. Perforation occurred in 2 patients in Group H, which was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, soft coagulation using monopolar hemostatic forceps is more effective than heater probe thermocoagulation for achieving hemostasis.

Upper gastrointestinal active bleeding ulcers: review of literature on the results of endoscopic techniques and our experience with Hemospray

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding can lead from mild to immediately life-threatening clinical conditions. Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is associated with a mortality of 6-10%. Spurting and oozing bleeding are associated with major risk of failure. Hemospray™ (TC-325), a new hemostatic powder, may be useful in these cases. Aim of this study is to review the efficacy of traditional endoscopic treatment in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers and to investigate the usefulness of Hemospray in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed and articles that evaluated hemostatic efficacy and rebleeding rate with traditional endoscopic techniques related to Forrest classification were reviewed. Patients with Forrest 1a-1b ulcers were treated with Hemospray, either as monotherapy or in association with other endoscopic techniques. Primary outcome was immediate hemostasis, secondary outcomes were recurrent bleeding and adverse events related to Hemospray use.

RESULTS

Analysis of literature showed that mean initial hemostasis success rate in Forrest 1a-1b ulcers was of 92.8%, and mean rebleeding rate was of 13.3%. We enrolled 13 patients treated with Hemospray. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 100% and we reported three cases of rebleeding. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Forrest 1a-1b bleeding ulcer is very difficult to treat. Hemospray appears to be an effective hemostatic therapy for these ulcers. However, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Management of patients with ulcer bleeding

This guideline presents recommendations for the step-wise management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Hemodynamic status is first assessed, and resuscitation initiated as needed. Patients are risk-stratified based on features such as hemodynamic status, comorbidities, age, and laboratory tests. Pre-endoscopic erythromycin is considered to increase diagnostic yield at first endoscopy. Pre-endoscopic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may be considered to decrease the need for endoscopic therapy but does not improve clinical outcomes. Upper endoscopy is generally performed within 24h. The endoscopic features of ulcers direct further management. Patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels receive endoscopic therapy (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, sclerosant, clips) and those with an adherent clot may receive endoscopic therapy; these patients then receive intravenous PPI with a bolus followed by continuous infusion. Patients with flat spots or clean-based ulcers do not require endoscopic therapy or intensive PPI therapy. Recurrent bleeding after endoscopic therapy is treated with a second endoscopic treatment; if bleeding persists or recurs, treatment with surgery or interventional radiology is undertaken. Prevention of recurrent bleeding is based on the etiology of the bleeding ulcer. H. pylori is eradicated and after cure is documented anti-ulcer therapy is generally not given. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are stopped; if they must be resumed low-dose COX-2-selective NSAID plus PPI is used. Patients with established cardiovascular disease who require aspirin should start PPI and generally re-institute aspirin soon after bleeding ceases (within 7 days and ideally 1-3 days). Patients with idiopathic ulcers receive long-term anti-ulcer therapy.

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.

The prognosis of patients having received optimal therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding might be worse in daily practice than in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Combination of endoscopic haemostatic and high-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors is considered to be the standard care for patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

AIM

This study assessed predictive factors of rebleeding and death in unselected patients presented to our hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with nonmalignant bleeding ulcers and stigmata of recent haemorrhage who received optimal treatment, between 22 August 2003 and 15 October 2007, were studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

Among 140 included patients, 45 (32%) rebled and 30 received another haemostatic endoscopy, which was successful in 20 cases. In multivariate analysis, the only significant predictive factor of rebleeding was duodenal site of the ulcer [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 2.75; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-6.19]. In-hospital death occurred in 27 (19%) patients; with five deaths related to uncontrolled or recurrent bleeding. In multivariate analysis, predictors of in-hospital mortality were rebleeding (adjusted OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.17-9.16), a Rockall score higher than 6 (adjusted OR: 9.12; 95% CI: 2.57-44.29) and bleeding occurring in the intensive care unit (adjusted OR: 15.68; 95% CI: 4.41-55.82).

CONCLUSION

In unselected patients, rebleeding and mortality rates are substantially higher than those found in prospective randomized clinical trials. Intensive care unit stay is an important predictive factor of hospital mortality and should be considered in further therapeutic trials in ulcer bleeding.

Methodology for randomized trials of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: recommendations from an international consensus conference

The aim of this document is to provide a methodological framework for the design, performance, analysis, interpretation, and communication of randomized trials that assess management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Literature searches were performed and an iterative process with electronic and face-to-face meetings was used to achieve consensus among panel members as part of an International Consensus Conference on Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Recommendations of the panel include the following. Randomized trials must explicitly state their primary hypothesis. A nonmanipulable randomization schedule with concealed allocation should be used. Stratification (e.g., for age and stigmata of hemorrhage) may be considered, especially in smaller studies. The patient and personnel providing care or recording information should be blinded. Inclusion criteria should be overt bleeding with endoscopy performed within 24 h or less. One type of lesion (e.g., ulcer) should be studied with stigmata to be included predefined. Use of placebo/no therapy vs. active controls depends on current standard practice. Standardizing study and key non-study interventions should ensure uniform provision of interventions. Criteria for repeat endoscopy and subsequent interventions should be predefined. The primary end point should be further bleeding (persistent and recurrent bleeding) with primary assessment at 7 days; mortality, with primary assessment at 30 days, would be appropriate in very large trials. Sample size calculation based on assumptions regarding primary end point results with regard to study intervention and control must be provided, and all patients enrolled must be accounted for. In general, the primary population for analysis is all patients randomized, although a per-protocol population may be used if this is the more conservative approach (e.g., equivalence study).

Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Optimal endoscopic hemostasis remains undetermined. This was a systematic review of contemporary methods of endoscopic hemostasis for patients with bleeding ulcers that exhibited high-risk stigmata.

SETTING

Randomized trials that evaluated injection, thermocoagulation, clips, or combinations of these were evaluated from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (1990-2006).

PATIENTS

A total of 4261 patients were evaluated.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes were rebleeding (primary), surgery, and mortality (secondary). Summary statistics were determined; publication bias and heterogeneity were sought by using funnel plots or by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS

Forty-one trials assessed 4261 patients. All endoscopic therapies decreased rebleeding versus pharmacotherapy alone, including sole intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibition (PPI) (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34-0.92]); only one trial assessed high-dose IV PPI. Injection alone was inferior compared with other methods, except for thermal hemostasis (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.40]), with a strong trend of increased rebleeding if 1 injectate is used rather than 2 (OR 1.40 [95% CI, 0.95-2.05]). Injection followed by thermal therapy did not decrease rebleeding compared with clips (OR 0.82 [95% CI, 0.28-2.38]) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.24-2.62]). Subgroup analysis, however, suggested that injection followed by thermal therapy was superior to thermal therapy alone. Clips were superior to thermal therapy (OR 0.24 [95% CI, 0.06-0.95]) but, when followed by injection, were not superior to clips alone (OR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.36-4.76]). Surgery or mortality was not altered in most comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

All endoscopic treatments are superior to pharmacotherapy alone; only 1 study assessed high-dose IV PPI. Optimal endoscopic therapies include thermal therapy or clips, either alone or in combination with other methods. Additional data are needed that compare injection followed by thermal therapy to clips alone or clips combined with another method.

Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study was to determine appropriate endoscopic treatment of patients with bleeding ulcers by synthesizing results of randomized controlled trials. We performed dual independent bibliographic database searches to identify randomized trials of thermal therapy, injection therapy, or clips for bleeding ulcers with active bleeding, visible vessels, or clots, focusing on results from studies without second-look endoscopy and re-treatment. The primary end point was further (persistent plus recurrent) bleeding. Compared with epinephrine, further bleeding was reduced significantly by other monotherapies (relative risk [RR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36-0.93]; number-needed-to-treat [NNT], 9 [95% CI, 5-53]), and epinephrine followed by another modality (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23-0.50]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 5-7]); epinephrine was not significantly less effective in studies with second-look and re-treatment. Compared with no endoscopic therapy, further bleeding was reduced by thermal contact (heater probe, bipolar electrocoagulation) (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.36-0.54]; NNT, 4 [95% CI, 3-5]) and sclerosant therapy (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-13]). Clips were more effective than epinephrine (RR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09-0.55]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-9]), but not different than other therapies, although the latter studies were heterogeneous, showing better and worse results for clips. Endoscopic therapy was effective for active bleeding (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43]; NNT, 2 [95% CI, 2-2]) and a nonbleeding visible vessel (RR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.40-0.59]; NNT, 5 [95% CI, 4-6]), but not for a clot. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy significantly improved outcome compared with placebo/no therapy (RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28-0.59]; NNT, 12 [95% CI, 10-18]), but not compared with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists. Thermal devices, sclerosants, clips, and thrombin/fibrin glue appear to be effective endoscopic hemostatic therapies. Epinephrine should not be used alone. Endoscopic therapy should be performed for ulcers with active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessels, but efficacy is uncertain for clots. Bolus followed by continuous-infusion intravenous proton pump inhibitor should be used after endoscopic therapy.

Endoscopic clipping for acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding (NVUGIB) is common, with a high rate of recurrent bleeding and substantial mortality rate. Endoscopic clipping has the theoretical advantage of minimizing tissue injury and is increasingly used.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate any potential benefits of clipping over other endoscopic techniques for NVUGIB.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared clipping with other endoscopic hemostatic methods to treat NVUGIB were included. Summary effect size was estimated by odds ratio (OR) with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs met inclusion criteria. For peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), the hemoclip (n = 351 patients) was compared with the heat probe alone, thermal therapy plus injection, and injection alone in 2, 2, and 5 studies, respectively (n = 348 patients). The rate of the initial hemostasis was nonsignificantly increased in the control group compared with the hemoclip group (92% vs 96%, OR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.19-1.75]). The rebleeding rate was nonsignificantly decreased with hemoclips compared with controls (8.5% vs 15.5%, OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.30-1.05]). Emergency surgery and the mortality rate were not significantly different between the hemoclip and controls. Subgroup analysis conducted in studies that compared hemoclips with injection alone show similar results. Two studies and one study reported outcomes of interest for Dieulafoy's lesions and Mallory-Weiss syndrome, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs that compared clipping alone with other endoscopic hemostatic techniques for NVUGIB were limited. Current evidence suggests that the hemoclip is not superior to other endoscopic modalities in terms of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, emergency surgery, and the mortality rate for treatment of PUB.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Validity of the Rockall scoring system after endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The Rockall scoring system was developed in unselected patients, the majority of whom did not receive endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Rockall system in high-risk patients who undergo endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

METHODS

Rockall scores were calculated in 247 patients with major peptic ulcer bleeding entered into a randomized trial of endoscopic therapy. The observed rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality after endoscopic therapy were compared with predicted rates derived from Rockall's study group. The validity of the Rockall system was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination.

RESULTS

Rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality after endoscopic therapy increased with an increasing Rockall score. Observed rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality were below predicted rates, and calibration of the Rockall system was poor (Mantel-Haenszel chi square = 25.8, p < 0.0001 for recurrent bleeding; Mantel-Haenszel chi square = 15.1, p < 0.0001 for death). For the prediction of recurrent bleeding, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was low (63.4%), but the system was satisfactory when predicting mortality (area under the resulting curve, 84.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

After endoscopic therapy for a bleeding peptic ulcer, the Rockall scoring system can identify patients at high risk of death, but it is inadequate for the prediction of recurrent bleeding.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: standard and new treatment

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a challenging problem with a significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years endoscopic techniques have evolved, resulting in improved primary hemostasis and a reduction in the risk of rebleeding. Combination endoscopic therapy followed by high-dose proton pump inhibitor shows improved outcomes. Innovative endoscopic therapies hold promise but are as yet unproved. An aging population with significant medical comorbidities has a major influence on the overall outcome from upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of haematemesis and melaena

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

Management of haematemesis and melaena

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