Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: room for improvement?

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.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided vascular access and therapy: A promising indication

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an imaging technique that has consolidated its role as an important tool for diagnosis and therapeutics. In recent years we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of EUS-guided therapeutic indications (celiac plexus neurolysis/block, pseudocyst drainage, etc). Preliminary reports have suggested EUS may also be used to guide vascular access for both imaging and treating different vascular diseases. This review aims to objectively describe the existing evidence in the field.

A randomized comparison of a new flexible bipolar hemostasis forceps designed principally for NOTES versus a conventional surgical laparoscopic bipolar forceps for intra-abdominal vessel sealing in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Current devices for hemostasis in flexible endoscopy are inferior to methods used during open or laparoscopic surgery and might be ineffective for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To compare new flexible bipolar forceps (FBF), designed principally for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with laparoscopic bipolar forceps (LBF) for hemostasis of intra-abdominal porcine arteries.

SETTING

Surgical laboratories in Europe and the United States.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS

New FBF for hemostasis (3.7-mm diameter), featuring electrode isolation, were compared with rigid 5-mm LBF (ERBE BiClamp LAP forceps) at recommended settings. A porcine model of acute hemostasis was prepared by suturing the uterine horns and cecum to the abdominal wall, exposing uterine arteries, ovarian pedicles, cecal mesenteric bundles, and the inferior mesenteric artery. This allowed access to 10 vessels in each pig by transabdominal laparoscopic devices or a transgastric double-channel gastroscope. Vessels were measured, coagulated at 4 and more points, and transected. Blood pressure was increased to more than 200 mm Hg for 10 minutes by administering phenylephrine. Delayed bleeding was identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

In 7 pigs, a total of 65 vessels (1.5-6.0 mm) were randomly allocated to FBF (n = 32) or LBF (n = 33). Successful hemostasis both before and after blood pressure increase was equivalent between the 2 groups (before: 88% FBF vs 88% LBF, not significant [NS]; after: 97% FBF vs 94% LBF, NS). With FBF, the number of seals per vessel was 4.8 vs 4.4 with LBF (NS). The energy used to create FBF seals was 19.8 J vs 38.2 J for LBF (P < .05).

LIMITATIONS

Results from porcine studies may not reflect patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a porcine model, transgastric FBF endoscopic hemostasis was as effective as conventional laparoscopic hemostasis using LBF across a wide range of vessels.

Application of endoscopic hemoclips for nonvariceal bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract

AIM: To investigate acute nonvariceal bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and evaluate the effects of endoscopic hemoclipping.

METHODS: Sixty-eight cases of acute nonvariceal bleeding in the upper GI tract were given endoscopic treatment with hemoclip application. Clinical data, endoscopic findings, and the effects of the therapy were evaluated.

RESULTS: The 68 cases (male:female = 42:26, age from 9 to 70 years, average 54.4) presented with hematemesis in 26 cases (38.2%), melena in nine cases (13.3%), and both in 33 cases (48.5%). The causes of the bleeding included gastric ulcer (29 cases), duodenal ulcer (11 cases), Dieulafoy’s lesion (11 cases), Mallory-Weiss syndrome (six cases), post-operative (three cases), post-polypectomy bleeding (five cases), and post-sphincterotomy bleeding (three cases); 42 cases had active bleeding. The mean number of hemoclips applied was four. Permanent hemostasis was obtained by hemoclip application in 59 cases; 6 cases required emergent surgery (three cases had peptic ulcers, one had Dieulafoy’s lesion, and two were caused by sphincterotomy); three patients died (two had Dieulafoy’s lesion and one was caused by sphincterotomy); and one had recurrent bleeding with Dieulafoy’s lesion 10 mo later, but in a different location.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic hemoclip application was an effective and safe method for acute nonvariceal bleeding in the upper GI tract with satisfactory outcomes.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided angiotherapy of refractory gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There are well-established methods for treating gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, although some lesions prove refractory to conventional techniques. Little consideration has been directed toward the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the management of refractory bleeding.

AIMS

To discuss patient selection, technique, and clinical outcomes for EUS-guided angiotherapy for severe refractory bleeding after conventional therapies.

METHODS

The EUS database was reviewed to identify all patients who underwent EUS-directed angiotherapy.

RESULTS

Five patients, four with severe bleeding from hemosuccus pancreaticus, Dieulafoy lesion, duodenal ulcer, or gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and one with occult GI bleeding, had an average of three prior episodes (range 2-4) of severe bleeding and had received 18 (range 14-25) units of packed red blood cells (PRBC). All had failed in at least two conventional attempts to control the bleeding. Under EUS guidance, 99% alcohol was injected (4-7 mL) in two patients, one each with a pancreatic pseudoaneurysm and a duodenal Dieulafoy lesion. In three other patients, cyanoacrylate (3-5 mL) was injected into a duodenal ulcer, and in two patients with a GIST. No patient rebled and no complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided angiotherapy appears safe and effective in managing selected patients with clinically severe or occult GI bleeding from lesions potentially refractory to standard endoscopic and/or angiographic techniques. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy and to refine the selection criteria in an effort to improve patient care.

Population pharmacokinetics and proton pump inhibitory effects of intravenous lansoprazole in healthy Japanese males

A total of 56 healthy Japanese males were enrolled in single- or multiple- dose pharmacokinetic trials of intravenous lansoprazole administration. The population pharmacokinetics of the drug was evaluated using nonlinear mixed effects model (NONMEM) software. In addition, the effect of CYP2C19 polymorphism on proton pump inhibition by lansoprazole was investigated using 24-h intragastric pH monitoring in the 32 subjects. Time course of serum lansoprazole concentration following intravenous short infusion was well described by a 2-compartment model. The mean volume of the central and peripheral compartments was 0.110 and 0.201 l/kg, respectively. The mean inter-compartment clearance was estimated to be 0.0882 l/h/kg. The population mean value of systemic clearance in the homoEM (CYP2C19 1/ 1), heteroEM (CYP2C19 1/2 and 1/3), and PM (CYP2C19 2/2, 2/3, and 3/3) groups was 0.179, 0.109, and 0.038 l/h/kg, respectively. The mean intragastric pH following twice-daily doses of 30 mg lansoprazole was approximately 6, 5, and 4 in the PM, heteroEM, and homoEM groups, respectively. These findings indicate that large interindividual variability exists in the pharmacokinetics of intravenously administered lansoprazole, but that twice-daily infusion of a 30 mg dose leads to significant and sustained proton pump inhibition, even in the homoEM group, despite the short elimination half-life of the drug.

Emergent gastroscopy in the treatment of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an analysis of 42 cases

AIM: To evaluate the efficiency of gastroscopic epinephrine injection with heat probe coagulation in the treatment of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB).

METHODS: Forty-two cases of ANVUGIB (including 13 cases of gastric ulcer, 25 cases of duodenal ulcer, and 4 cases of Dieulafoy' disease) were treated with gastroscopic epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation.

RESULTS: Bleeding was controlled in 38 (90.5%) of 42 cases. The rebleeding rate was 23.7% (9/38), and the surgery rate was 19.0% (8/42). No death occurred.

CONCLUSION: Epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation is an effective method for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding.

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.

Does adding misoprostol to standard intravenous proton pump inhibitor protocol improve the outcome of aspirin/NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding?: a randomized prospective study

Aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal bleeding is recognized as an important health problem. We performed a single-center randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor (omeprazole) alone (group 1) with omeprazole in combination with a low-dose prostaglandin analog (misoprostol; group 2) on clinical outcomes in patients with aspirin/NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Additionally, we evaluated the contribution of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy on the late consequences. Patients were recruited to the study if they had upper gastrointestinal bleeding with history of taking aspirin or other NSAIDs within the week before the onset of bleeding. All were evaluated in terms of probable risk factors. After the standard treatment protocol, patients with histologically proven H pylori infection were prescribed a triple eradication therapy for 14 days. The primary end points were recurrent bleeding, surgery requirement, and death rates before discharge and at the end of follow-up period. This study lasted for 2 years. A total of 249 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were admitted, and 49.7% of these patients were users of aspirin/NSAIDs. There were 67 patients in group 1 and 56 in group 2. The distributions for gender, age, comorbidity, H pylori infection, and high-risk ulcer rate were similar in both groups. Among aspirin/NSAID users, endoscopy revealed duodenal ulcer in 47 (38.2%), gastric ulcer in 10 (8.1%), and erosive gastropathy in 33 (26.8%). The overall rebleeding occurred in 12.2%, death in 2.4% of the patients. The in-hospital death (P=.414), rebleeding (P=.925), and surgery (P=.547) rates were similar in both treatment groups. After the follow-up period of 3 months, overall rebleeding occurred in 4.1%, and death in 4.8% of the patients. The overall mortality rate was highest in those >65 years old, who were chronic low-dose aspirin users with comorbidity. One died of transfusion-related graft-versus-host disease. In this pilot study, we indicated that adding misoprostol (600 microg/day) to standardized proton pump inhibitor treatment did not improve or change the rebleeding or mortality rates of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding related to aspirin/NSAID use. Other prospective studies on higher doses of misoprostol are needed to establish the coeffect. One should bear in mind that all blood products must be irradiated before transfused to the host.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with special attention to patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, and postprocedure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a large multicenter clinical trial, nurse-administered propofol sedation had a complication rate of less than 0.2%. The optimal management for an ulcer with adherent clot was confirmed by a meta-analysis to be clot removal and endoscopic treatment of the underlying lesion. A number of prospective studies have demonstrated that capsule endoscopy is the most sensitive imaging modality for identifying lesions in the small bowel and that double-balloon enteroscopy is the least invasive modality available for the management of these lesions.

SUMMARY

This update describes many recent advances in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, clearly, much work needs to be done in this field. Since propofol is not available for use in all endoscopy units, is there a better alternative for deep sedation? Rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients after endoscopic therapy, and so can we provide better outcomes with newer technologies (endoscopic suturing devices)? Finally, what is the best management for Helicobacter pylori-negative, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-negative ulcer patients?

Endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation for upper-GI hemorrhage: a comparison of one third and total circumference transparent end hoods

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemostasis for upper-GI hemorrhage often is difficult to achieve if the view of the bleeding lesion is poor because of the presence of mucus, blood, and clots. An end hood that facilitates endoscopic hemostatic procedures while simultaneously allowing irrigation of the bleeding site was designed by us. Based on this design, a one-third partial irrigating end hood was developed, and its usefulness for treatment of non-variceal hemorrhage was evaluated.

METHODS

The end hood was fabricated by drilling a side hole in the cap portion of a transparent end hood. An irrigation tube was glued to the exterior surface over the hole. A "total" (type 1) and a "one-third partial" (type 2) transparent end hood were fabricated. These differ with respect to the proportion of the endoscope circumference that is hooded by the device. The fabricated transparent end hood was placed on the tip of a standard endoscope. With the end hood in place, endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation was performed in 35 patients (type 1 end hood, 18; type 2, 17) with non-variceal upper-GI hemorrhage.

OBSERVATIONS

Hemostatic treatment was enhanced by simultaneous irrigation beneath the end hood, and hemostasis was successfully achieved in 34 of 35 cases. The time required to achieve hemostasis was significantly shorter in the type 2 group than the type 1 group (median 11.8 vs. 16.9 minutes; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The end hood was extremely useful for endoscopic hemostatic treatment under irrigation. The "one-third partial" end hood is superior to the total end hood in terms of duration of time required to achieve hemostasis.

Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection.

METHODS

An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). 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, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

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

The role of endoscopic Doppler US in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Stigmata of recent hemorrhage are important prognostic signs for patients with ulcer bleeding, but these are subjective findings. This study evaluated the additional diagnostic value of Doppler US assessment in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study was performed of patients with ulcer bleeding. Stigmata of recent hemorrhage were classified according to the Forrest classification, after which the ulcer was assessed by using an endoscopic Doppler US system. Patients with a Forrest Ib-IIb ulcer with a positive Doppler signal received endoscopic therapy. Patients with a Forrest IIc-III ulcer with a positive Doppler signal were allocated randomly to endoscopic therapy or no therapy. No ulcer without a Doppler signal was treated.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were enrolled. Of the Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers, 82% had a positive Doppler signal. Of the Forrest IIc-III ulcers, 53% had a positive Doppler signal. There was no difference in the rates of recurrent bleeding, surgery, or mortality between the group with Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers and between the Forrest IIc-III group with and without Doppler signal, but there was little power in the sample size to detect differences. Bleeding recurred in 3 patients without a Doppler signal. Recurrent bleeding was more frequent in the group in which a Doppler signal was still present immediately after endoscopic therapy (3/11 vs. 1/27; p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not substantiate a role for endoscopic Doppler US when this was added to the Forrest classification for making clinical decisions in patients with ulcer bleeding.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration.

SUMMARY

These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.