Effect of oral esomeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers

Management of Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Agents in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Prevention of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Managing gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using antithrombotic agents remains challenging in clinical practice. This review article provides a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to managing acute antithrombotic-related gastrointestinal bleeding, focusing on the triage of patients, appropriate resuscitation, and timely endoscopy. The latest clinical practice guidelines are highlighted to guide decisions concerning the use of reversal agents, temporary interruption, and resumption of antithrombotic drugs. Additionally, preventive measures are discussed to lower the risk of future bleeding and minimize complications among patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H₂RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Pediatric gastrointestinal bleeding: Perspectives from the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology

There are many causes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in children, and this condition is not rare, having a reported incidence of 6.4%. Causes vary with age, but show considerable overlap; moreover, while many of the causes in the pediatric population are similar to those in adults, some lesions are unique to children. The diagnostic approach for pediatric GIB includes definition of the etiology, localization of the bleeding site and determination of the severity of bleeding; timely and accurate diagnosis is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality. To assist medical care providers in the evaluation and management of children with GIB, the “Gastro-Ped Bleed Team” of the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (SIGENP) carried out a systematic search on MEDLINE via PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) to identify all articles published in English from January 1990 to 2016; the following key words were used to conduct the electronic search: “upper GIB” and “pediatric” [all fields]; “lower GIB” and “pediatric” [all fields]; “obscure GIB” and “pediatric” [all fields]; “GIB” and “endoscopy” [all fields]; “GIB” and “therapy” [all fields]. The identified publications included articles describing randomized controlled trials, reviews, case reports, cohort studies, case-control studies and observational studies. References from the pertinent articles were also reviewed. This paper expresses a position statement of SIGENP that can have an immediate impact on clinical practice and for which sufficient evidence is not available in literature. The experts participating in this effort were selected according to their expertise and professional qualifications.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to September 2005, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model. Searches were re-run in February 2006 and October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of hospitalised participants with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding, undergoing active treatment with a proton pump inhibitor PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment prior to endoscopy. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days and included mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH; active bleeding, non bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion requirements and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 2223 participants were included. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for dichotomous outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Unweighted pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). Unweighted pooled rebleeding rates were 13.9% and 16.6% respectively (OR 0.81; 95%CI 0.61 to 1.09). Pooled rates for surgery were 9.9% and 10.2% respectively (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35). PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). However, this result was not robust to sensitivity analysis. PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy; unweighted pooled rates were 8.6% and 11.7% respectively (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). For continuous outcomes (length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements), quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding might reduce the proportion of participants with SRH at index endoscopy and significantly reduces requirement for endoscopic therapy during index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.

The role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Pre-endoscopic administration of PPIs in patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding is still of controversial efficacy. It downstages the severity of the endoscopic signs of recent bleeding and may reduce the requirement for endoscopic hemostatic therapy at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence of an effect on mortality, rebleeding, or surgical intervention rates. In contrast, the efficacy of PPIs in endoscopically diagnosed peptic ulcer bleeding is supported by high-quality evidence from numerous RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. PPIs compared with H2RAs or placebo consistently reduce rebleeding rates regardless of dose, route of administration, application or not of endoscopic hemostatic treatment, and geographic location. Surgical intervention rates and the need for further endoscopic hemostatic treatment are also reduced by PPI treatment, although the results are not as robust as those for rebleeding. There is no evidence of an overall effect of PPI treatment on all-cause mortality. However, all-cause mortality is reduced among patients with high-risk endoscopic signs and among trials that had been conducted in Asia. The optimal dose and route of PPI administration has yet to be determined.

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.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) initiated prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was undertaken according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model using CENTRAL, (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings up to September 2005. The literature search was re-run in February 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised patients with unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Types of interventions: Active treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) and control treatment with either placebo or an histamine-(2) receptor antagonist (H(2)RA). Types of outcome measures: Assessed at 30 days: mortality, rebleeding and surgery. Also assessed were stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy, length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers assessed the eligibility criteria of each study and extracted data regarding outcomes and factors affecting methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs were included for review. No further RCTS were identified in an updated literature search. Four trials comprising a total of 1512 patients in total reported data for all randomised patients. There was no statistical heterogeneity among trials for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of mortality, rebleeding or surgery between PPI and control treatment. Pooled mortality rates were 6.1% and 5.5% respectively (odds ratio (OR)1.12; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). Pooled rebleeding rates were 13.9% and 16.6% respectively (OR 0.81; 95%CI 0.61 to 1.09). Pooled rates for surgery were 9.9% and 10.2% respectively (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35). PPI treatment compared to control significantly reduced the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy; pooled rates were 37.2% and 46.5% respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84). For the continuous outcomes, namely length of hospital stay and blood transfusion requirements, quantitative analysis could not be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding significantly reduces the proportion of patients with stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy. However, there is no evidence that PPI treatment affects clinically important outcomes, namely mortality, rebleeding or need for surgery.