Acute gastrointestinal bleeding

Prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers following endoscopic control of bleeding

BACKGROUND

Bleeding peptic ulcer is a serious condition that often requires immediate endoscopic or surgical intervention to stop the bleeding (haemostasis). Following haemostasis, patients are at risk of rebleeding, leading to reintervention and risk of morbidity or mortality. In order to prevent rebleeding and associated complications, prophylactic measures have been developed and investigated. Prophylactic transarterial embolization (TAE), where the blood vessel leading to the site of the bleeding ulcer is closed via embolization (e.g. using coils to stop blood flow), has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to address this challenge. However, a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy and impact on patient outcomes is essential.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic transarterial embolization after successful endoscopic treatment compared with endoscopic haemostasis only on the risk of rebleeding after bleeding peptic ulcer, in patients where endoscopic haemostasis has been successful.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2023 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Central, Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no language or publication status constraints.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review included prospective randomized controlled trials that evaluated prophylactic TAE in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. The selection process involved meticulous screening, full-text reviews, and considerations of study design, intervention, and patient populations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments. The outcomes of interest were rebleeding within 30 days, need for reintervention within 30 days, 30-day mortality, complications within 30 days, duration of hospitalization and success rate of the embolization. We contacted authors of included studies for missing and more detailed data, allowing us to carry out sensitivity analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes two studies involving 346 participants. Prophylactic TAE may not reduce the odds of rebleeding within 30 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.83; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no effect on reintervention rates per event (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.35; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence) or per participant (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to1.69; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.21; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence). Unfortunately, we were unable to analyze complications other than rebleeding, reintervention and mortality, as data for these outcomes were not available in the included studies. The duration of hospitalization may be shorter for participants undergoing prophylactic TAE (mean difference (days) -2.41, 95% CI -4.06 to -0.76; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was low, but there was a high risk of performance bias and detection bias as none of the included studies were blinded. Further, one study had a high risk of selection bias as the randomization lists were created by the primary investigator.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is low-certainty evidence that prophylactic TAE may not reduce the odds of rebleeding, reintervention or mortality for participants following peptic ulcer bleeding. It may, however, reduce the duration of hospitalization. Ultimately, due to the limited number of studies and participants, further research with larger populations is warranted to validate these findings and explore additional outcomes, including adverse events other than rebleeding, reintervention and mortality.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Diagnostic sigmoidoscopy and barium enema examinations (n = 214) or colonoscopy (n = 52) were performed for acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. The cause of bleeding was detected in 76% (203 of 266) of the primary examinations, and the cause remained unclear after subsequent examinations in 17% of the cases. Hemorrhoids were the cause of bleeding in 28% (56 of 203) of the cases, colonic diverticular disease in 19% (39 of 203), adenomatous polyps in 11% (23 of 203), and colorectal cancer in 10% (20 of 203). The sources of bleeding did not differ significantly by sex. An anorectal site of bleeding was most often detected in patients less than 50 years of age (p < 0.0001) and a left colonic site in those more than 70 years (p < 0.0001). Hemorrhoids significantly more often caused rectal bleeding among the youngest patients (p < 0.0001) and colonic diverticular disease among the oldest patients (p < 0.0001) and colonic diverticular disease among the oldest patients (p < 0.0001) than among the others. Of the 266 patients, 19% have been operated on for the bleeding lesion. The mortality related to lower GI bleeding was 4% (11 of 266). The mean age of the patients who died was higher than that of those who survived (p < 0.05).

Hypotension and endoscopic stigmata of recent haemorrhage in bleeding peptic ulcer: risk models for rebleeding and mortality

Clinical and endoscopic data were collected prospectively in 1050 patients with bleeding peptic ulcer admitted between September 1985 and July 1989 to the care of one surgical team. Seventy-nine patients underwent therapeutic endoscopy soon after admission and in 129 patients either immediate or early elective surgery was performed. Eight hundred and forty-two patients, in whom therapeutic endoscopy was not performed at any stage, underwent initial conservative management and data from this latter group are now presented. Shock on admission was defined as systolic blood pressure (BP) less than or equal to 100 mmHg on presentation. There were 10 deaths of 147 shocked patients (6.8%) compared with only 25 deaths of 695 patients (3.6%) not in shock (P less than 0.08). Bleeding recurred in 30 patients (20.4%) shocked on presentation but in only 96 (13.8%) with a BP greater than 100 mmHg (P less than 0.05). Twenty-one of 358 patients (5.9%) with endoscopic stigmata of recent haemorrhage (ESRH) died, but only 14 of 484 patients (2.9%) without such stigmata (P less than 0.05) died. In shocked patients rebleeding was evident in 21 of 73 (28.8%) cases with ESRH but in only 9 of 74 (12.2%) patients in whom ESRH were absent (P less than 0.02). In the absence of fresh blood at endoscopy rebleeding occurred in 22 of 124 (17.8%) shocked patients and only 74 of 629 (11.8%) of those not shocked on presentation (P less than 0.07). When ulcer size was documented rebleeding rates for ulcers less than or equal to 1 cm, less than or equal to 2 cm and greater than 2 cm in size were 54 of 485 (11.1%), 30 of 142 (21.2%) and 12 of 44 (27.3%) respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Hemodynamically stable upper gastrointestinal bleeding

This article is a prospective evaluation of 38 patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with hematemesis but who were otherwise hemodynamically stable. Four patients were admitted, only one because of the development of hemodynamic instability. Thirty-three patients were discharged; on follow-up there was no evidence of major morbidity or mortality. Two patients were lost to follow-up, one who left against medical advice and one who lived in a county outside the service area of our hospital. Patients with hematemesis can be safely discharged from the ED after observation for 6 hours if they: (1) lack orthostatic vital sign changes; (2) lack associated significant underlying disease; (3) have a hemoglobin concentration greater than 10 gm/dL; (4) are less than 60 years of age; and (5) are thought to be reliable and compliant.

Management of bleeding ulcers

Hemorrhage is a common complication of peptic ulcer disease and is increased in frequency and severity with aspirin and NSAID use. A variety of clinical and endoscopic factors associated with an increased mortality rate from ulcer bleeding have been identified, the most important of which are presentation in shock and ongoing or recurrent bleeding after routine resuscitative measures. After hemodynamic stabilization, the goal of therapy is to diminish the chance that an ulcer will continue to bleed or will rebleed. Currently, this is best achieved by one of several endoscopic interventions in carefully selected patients. The most effective endoscopic techniques for decreasing the risk of ulcer rebleeding are multipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe thermal coagulation, and injection therapy in patients with active bleeding or a visible vessel in the ulcer base. Injection therapy may be used alone or in combination with either of the other two techniques. The major impact of therapeutic endoscopy appears to be a reduction in the number of emergent operations necessary to control hemorrhage. The mortality of emergent surgery for bleeding ulcer is prohibitive, and any means of reducing the need for surgery is likely to have a beneficial effect on survival.

Bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective evaluation of risk factors for rebleeding and mortality

Clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory data were collected prospectively in 701 patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. The overall rebleeding rate was 16.1% and increased the risk of a fatal outcome by 17 fold (1.2% versus 20.6%, p less than 0.001). Rebleeding was documented in more than 75% of the group who did not survive following initial conservative management. Rebleeding was more likely (24.1% versus 14.2%, p less than 0.02) when shock was present on admission and the risk of a rebleed was doubled in patients over 60 years of age (22.1% versus 10.9%, p less than 0.001). Ulcers greater than 1 cm in size carried twice the risk of rebleeding (23.9% versus 12.4%, p less than 0.002). Concomitant medical illness had a significant adverse effect on outcome (p less than 0.05). Shock on admission was associated with a doubling of mortality figures (9.5% versus 3.7%, p less than 0.01). The identification of endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage (ESRH) tripled the risk of mortality (7.5% versus 2.4%, p less than 0.002), ESRH were more frequently encountered when ulcer size was larger than 1 cm (61.4% versus 39.8%, p less than 0.001). Respective mortality rates for ulcers less than or equal to 1 cm and greater than 1 cm in size were 1.6% and 12.5% (p less than 0.001), corresponding mortality figures for patients over 60 years of age being 4.4% and 16.4% (p less than 0.002). The risk of a rebleed tripled (6.7% versus 2.6%, p less than 0.02) when ESRH were evident. There was a 6-fold increase in mortality following emergency surgery when compared with conservative management of patients in whom no surgical intervention was necessary (2.6% versus 14.9%, p less than 0.001). In summary, age over 60 years, previous medical illness, shock on admission, large ulcer size, and ESRH were each associated with an increased risk of rebleeding and mortality.