Role of the endoscopic Doppler probe in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic Diagnosis, Grading, and Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a major cause for hospital admissions and has a significant mortality. Endoscopic interventions reduce the risk of rebleeding in high-risk patients and several options are available including injection therapies, thermal therapies, mechanical clips, hemostatic sprays, and endoscopic suturing. Proton-pump inhibitors and Helicobacter pylori treatment are important adjuncts to endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic therapy is indicated in Forrest 1a, 1b, and 2a lesions. Patients with Forrest 2b lesions may do well with proton-pump inhibitor therapy alone but can also be managed by removal of the clot and targeting endoscopic therapy to the underlying lesion.

Doppler-Guided Second-Look Endoscopy in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment guided by Doppler endoscopic probes (DEPs) during index endoscopy may be associated with improved outcome in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). As competencies for DEP evaluation are not always available for index endoscopy, we examined the outcome associated with DEP evaluation at second-look endoscopy.

METHODS

The study was designed as a non-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Patients admitted with PUB from Forrest Ia-IIb ulcers, controlled by endoscopic therapy, were randomised (1:1 ratio) to second-look endoscopy <24 h with DEP evaluation of the bleeding ulcer or continued standard treatment. Patients were followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included the number of transfusions, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were included. At second-look endoscopy, 91% (29/32) of patients had a positive DEP signal at the ulcer base and were treated with contact thermal therapy (n = 29), injection of diluted adrenaline (n = 23), and haemoclips (n = 7). Among the 32 patients treated with DEP evaluation, only one rebled (3%) compared to four patients (13%) in the control group (p = 0.20). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes between groups, and there were no complications related to DEP evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-look endoscopy with DEP-guided evaluation and treatment is safe and associated with a very low risk of rebleeding (3%) in patients with PUB. Second-look endoscopy with DEP evaluation may be considered in selected PUB patients at high risk of rebleeding, and may represent an alternative to the use of DEP for index endoscopy. Nevertheless, we did not find that second-look endoscopy with DEP evaluation significantly improved patient outcome compared to standard treatment.

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy.

METHODS

The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy.

DISCUSSION

After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.