High- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicentre, randomized study

Efficacy of Vonoprazan vs. Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor in Prevention of Re-Bleeding of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Background: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is well-established for its effectiveness in reducing re-bleeding in high-risk peptic ulcer patients following endoscopic hemostasis. Vonoprazan (VPZ) has demonstrated the capacity to achieve gastric pH levels exceeding 4, comparable to PPIs. This study aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of intravenous PPI infusion versus VPZ in preventing re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with high-risk peptic ulcers. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, controlled, and double-dummy design was employed. Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (Forrest class IA/IB or IIA/IIB) who underwent endoscopic hemostasis were randomly assigned to either the PPI group or the VPZ group. Re-bleeding rates at 3, 7, and 30 days, the number of blood transfusions required, length of hospitalization, and ulcer healing rate at 56 days were assessed. Results: A total of 44 eligible patients were enrolled, including 20 patients (PPI group, n = 11; VPZ group, n = 9) with high-risk peptic ulcers. The mean age was 66 years, with 70% being male. Re-bleeding within 72 h occurred in 9.1% of the PPI group versus 0% in the VPZ group (p = 1.000). There was no significant difference in re-bleeding rates within 7 days and 30 days (18.2% vs. 11.1%, p = 1.000). Additionally, the ulcer healing rate did not significantly differ between the groups (87.5% vs. 77.8%). Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates comparable efficacy between oral vonoprazan and continuous PPI infusion in preventing recurrent bleeding events among high-risk peptic ulcer patients following successful endoscopic hemostasis.

The Evolution and Future of Intensive Care Management in the Era of Telecritical Care and Artificial Intelligence

Critical care practice has been embodied in the healthcare system since the institutionalization of intensive care units (ICUs) in the late '50s. Over time, this sector has experienced many changes and improvements in providing immediate and dedicated healthcare as patients requiring intensive care are often frail and critically ill with high mortality and morbidity rates. These changes were aided by innovations in diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring technologies, as well as the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and organizational structures within the ICU. In this review, we examine these changes in intensive care management over the past 40 years and their impact on the quality of care available to patients. Moreover, the current state of intensive care management is characterized by a multidisciplinary approach and the use of innovative technologies and research databases. Advancements such as telecritical care and artificial intelligence are being increasingly explored, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce the length of hospitalization and ICU mortality. With these advancements in intensive care and ever-changing patient needs, critical care experts, hospital managers, and policymakers must also explore appropriate organizational structures and future enhancements within the ICU.

Effects of high-dose versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors for treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of high-dose (80 mg/day) versus low-dose (40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding.

Methods

We retrieved studies of randomized controlled trials of PPIs administered according to different schedules for the treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database in April 2020.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials including 2329 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the incidences of re-bleeding, operation intervention, postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay between the low-dose and high-dose groups. However, the blood transfusion volume was significantly higher in the high-dose group.

Conclusion

Compared with low-does PPIs, high-dose PPIs had no effect on the incidence of re-bleeding, operation intervention, or postoperative mortality, and did not reduce hospital stay in patients treated with endoscopic hemostasis for gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.

High-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors Are Superior to Standard-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in High-Risk Patients With Bleeding Ulcers and High-Risk Stigmata After Endoscopic Hemostasis

INTRODUCTION

To define the best cutoff of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) for identifying high- and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis and compare the efficacy of high-dose and standard-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (HD-IVPs and SD-IVPs, respectively) in this patient population.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 346 patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who underwent endoscopic hemostasis between March 2014 and September 2018 in our center and were divided into an HD-IVP group and an SD-IVP group. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed to control for selection bias and other potential confounders. Recurrent bleeding rates were calculated according to the GBS.

RESULTS

Overall, 346 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled, with 89 patients in the SD-IVP group and 89 patients in the HD-IVP group after matching with all baseline characteristics balanced (P > 0.05). GBS = 8 was the best cutoff for identifying high-risk rebleeding patients (GBS ≥ 8) with a significant difference (P = 0.015) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (17/61, 27.9%) and HD-IVP (7/65, 10.8%) groups and low-risk rebleeding patients (GBS < 8) with no difference (P = 1) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (2/28, 7.1%) and HD-IVP (2/24, 8.3%) groups.

DISCUSSION

The best cutoff for identifying high-risk and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis was GBS = 8. Although HD-IVP is more effective than SD-IVP in high-risk patients, they are equally effective in low-risk patients.

High- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors post endoscopic hemostasis in hemodialysis cases with peptic ulcer bleeding

Post-endoscopic hemostasis treatment is not adequately addressed in high-risk patients on regular hemodialysis (HD) with emergency peptic ulcer bleeding. This study aimed to compare post-endoscopic high- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients undergoing regular HD. This prospective study comprised 200 patients on regular hemodialysis having emergency peptic ulcer bleeding confirmed at endoscopy and managed with endoscopic hemostasis. Half of the patients received high-dose intensive regimen and the other half received the standard regimen. Patients who were suspected to have recurrent bleeding underwent a second endoscopy for bleeding control. The primary outcome measure was rate of recurrent bleeding during period of hospitalization that was detected through second endoscopy. Rebleeding occurred in 32 patients ; 15 in the High-Dose Cohort and 17 in the Low-Dose Control (p = 0.700). No significant differences between the two dose cohorts regarding the time of rebleeding (p = 0.243), endoscopic hemostasis mode (p = 1.000), and need for surgery (p = 0.306). The highdose regimen Inhospital mortality in high-dose group was 9.0% compared to 8.0% in the low-dose group (p = 0.800). Apart from the pre-hemostatic Forrest classification of ulcers, there were no significant differences between patients with re-bleeding ulcers (n=32) and those with non-rebleeding (n=168). Rebleeding was more common in class Ia, i.e. spurting bleeders (p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis followed by the standard low-dose PPI regimen of 40 mg daily IV boluses is safe and effective option for bleeding peptic ulcers in the high-risk patients under regular hemodialysis.

Skipping the Drip: Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor Bolus Therapy Leads to Poor Outcomes in High-Risk Bleeding

Background and Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a change in our institute's protocol from continuous intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy to bolus IV PPI therapy for the treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding on patient outcomes. Current guidelines recommend PPI therapy through high-dose IV bolus followed by continuous infusion for bleeding ulcers. Conflicting data have been reported regarding the practice shift to intermittent IV PPI therapy. Methods A retrospective record review was conducted of patients treated at West Virginia University between 2017 and 2018 for peptic ulcer related bleeding who underwent endoscopy and had high-risk stigmata. Relevant variables were identified. Outcomes were compared between groups based on PPI strategy. The primary endpoint was any poor outcome defined as rebleeding, need for embolization or surgery, or mortality during hospital stay. Results A total of 130 patients were included, with a mean age of 62.18 years. Continuous PPI infusion was used in 39.23%, whereas bolus IV PPI was used 60.76%. Poor outcome was encountered in 11 (21.57%) patients in the continuous and 33 (41.77%) patients in the bolus group (p = 0.028). On multivariable analyses, bolus PPI strategy was independently linked to poor outcome (Wald's odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.21-6.84; p = 0.019) and an increased need for embolization/surgery (OR: 4.12, 95% CI: 1.14-19.99; p = 0.046). Conclusions IV bolus therapy showed worse outcomes compared with continuous IV PPI therapy for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding with high-risk features. More robust data are needed before a practice shift to bolus PPI may be appropriate.

Efficacy of vonoprazan in prevention of bleeding from endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced gastric ulcers: a prospective randomized phase II study

BACKGROUND

Vonoprazan, potassium-competitive acid blocker, is expected to reduce incidence of delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, preliminary data to design a large-scale comparative study are lacking. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of vonoprazan in preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized phase II trial, a modified screened selection design was used with a threshold non-bleeding rate of 89% and an expected rate of 97%. In this design, Simon's optimal two-stage design was first applied for each parallel group, and efficacy was evaluated in comparison with the threshold rate using binomial testing. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vonoprazan 20 mg (VPZ group) or lansoprazole 30 mg (PPI group) for 8 weeks from the day before gastric ESD. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed bleeding, defined as endoscopically confirmed bleeding accompanied by hematemesis, melena, or a decrease in hemoglobin of ≥ 2 g/dl.

RESULTS

Delayed bleeding occurred in three of 69 patients (4.3%, 95% CI 0.9-12.2%, p = 0.047) in the VPZ group, and four of 70 (5.7%, 95% CI 1.6-14.0%, p = 0.104) in the PPI group. As only vonoprazan showed significant reduction in delayed bleeding compared with the threshold rate, it was determined to be efficacious treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Vonoprazan efficaciously reduced the delayed bleeding rate in patients with an ESD-induced gastric ulcer. A large-scale, randomized, phase III study is warranted to definitively test the effectiveness of vonoprazan compared with proton pump inhibitors.

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.

High-dose vs. Low-dose Proton Pump Inhibitors post-endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Present meta-analysis aims to evaluate studies of low- versus high-dose proton pump Inhibitors (PPI) post-endoscopic hemostasis, including the newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to conclude whether low-dose PPI can generate the comparable results as high-dose PPI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To identify suitable trials, the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and the Embase were used. All RCTs concerning low- versus high-dose PPI administration post-endoscopic hemostasis published until December 2016 were identified. Primary outcomes were rebleeding rates, need for surgical intervention, and mortality.

RESULTS

Studies included a total of 1.651 participants. There were significantly less cases of rebleeding in the low-dose PPI treatment arm (p=0.003). All but one study provided data concerning need for Surgical Intervention and Mortality. The respective effect sizes were [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.35, 0.72-2.53] and [OR, 95% CI: 1.20, 0.70-2.05]. Both treatment arms were comparable considering the aforementioned outcomes (p=0.35 and p=0.51, respectively). Meta-regression analysis likewise unveiled comparable outcomes between studies using pantoprazole versus lansoprazole concerning all three outcomes [rebleeding (p=0.944), surgical intervention (p=0.884), and mortality (p=0.961)].

CONCLUSION

A low-dose PPI treatment is equally effective as a high-dose PPI treatment following endoscopic arresting of bleeding. However, we anticipate the completion of more high-quality RCTs that will embrace distinct ethnicities, standardized endoscopic diagnosis and management, double-blind strategies, and appraisal of results working specific standards over clear-cut follow-up periods.

Efficacy Comparison of Divided and Infusion Intravenous Pantoprazole Methods after Endoscopic Therapy in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background:

Intravenous pantoprazole administration in patients with severe bleeding under urgent endoscopic therapy is effective. Furthermore, its infusion dose is useful to control bleeding; however, it is not economical. In this study, clinical outcomes and intravenous infusion of pantoprazole after endoscopic therapy plus efficacy of infusion dosage and divided doses are compared.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective, comparative study conducted on 18 adult (>18 years) patients referred to Al Zahra Hospital for hematemesis and melena bleeding who underwent endoscopic treatment with pantoprazole which divided into two groups of forty patients. First group received intravenous infusion for 80 mg and 8 mg/h. The second group received intravenous infusion with divided doses as 40 mg twice daily for 3 days. Clinical outcomes such as rebleeding, duration of hospitalization, amount of blood transfused, and mortality within 3 days after endoscopic treatment were collected and analyzed by SPSS software (version 20) using independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test.

Results:

Duration of hospitalization in the pantoprazole infusion group was 5.42 ± 4.62 days, with three patients (7.5%) having rebleeding, and in the divided pantoprazole group was 5.90 ± 3.08 days, with four patients (10%) having rebleeding, and overall, only one person died in the divided pantoprazole group (2.5%) out of eighty patients. No significant difference was observed between two groups in terms of clinical outcomes (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Regarding to results, it can be stated that both methods with specified dosage had significant impact on improvement of hematemesis and melena. Furthermore, due to lower costs, low dose of pantoprazole in divided approach as 40 mg/12 h is proposed.

Standard and double-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor injections for prevention of bleeding after endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic resection is commonly used to remove gastric neoplasms. However, effective dosing or scheduling of proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection remains unclear.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-six patients with gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer were enrolled. After an endoscopic procedure, each subject was randomly assigned to 40 mg every 24 h (standard dose group) or 40 mg every 12 h (double-dose group) of intravenous pantoprazole for 48 h. Second-look endoscopy was performed on day 2 after endoscopic resection to compare signs of rebleeding and ulcer status between the two groups.

RESULT

Eighty-one patients of the standard dose group and 81 of the double-dose group were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed bleeding events (1.3% vs 6.2%, P = 0.21) and bleeding ulcer at the second-look endoscopy (6.2% vs 3.9%, P = 0.69) between standard and double-dose groups. There were no other significant variables associated with delayed bleeding or bleeding ulcer on second-look endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg every 24 h or 12 h for 2 days after endoscopic resection was equally effective for the prevention of delayed bleeding.

Are higher doses of proton pump inhibitors better in acute peptic bleeding?

Although there is broad consensus about the benefits of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper peptic bleeding, there is still controversy over their optimal dosing. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including 27 randomized trials addressing this question. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded high-dose proton pump inhibitors probably result in little or no difference in re-bleeding rate or mortality. The risk/benefit and cost/benefit balance probably favor use of low-doses.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Management of Patients with Rebleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common emergency. Management of ulcer bleeding requires prompt risk stratification, initiation of pharmacotherapy, and timely evaluation for endoscopy. Although endoscopy can achieve primary hemostasis in more than 90% of peptic ulcer bleeding, rebleeding may occur in up to 15% of patients after therapeutic endoscopy and is associated with heightened mortality. Early identification of high-risk patients for rebleeding is important. Depending on bleeding severity and center availability, patients with rebleeding may be managed by second endoscopy, transarterial angiographic embolization, or surgery. This article reviews the current management of peptic ulcers with an emphasis on rebleeding.

High Dose Proton Pump Inhibitor Infusion Versus Bolus Injection for the Prevention of Bleeding After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

A high dose of continuous intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the standard treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding. The optimal dose for the prevention of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is unclear.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine whether stronger acid suppression more effectively prevents bleeding and high risk ulcer stigma (HRS) after gastric ESD.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients who underwent ESD were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the continuous infusion group and the bolus injection group. Second-look endoscopy was performed on the following day after ESD. The incidences and risk factors of HRS identified by second-look endoscopy and delayed bleeding were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the incidences of HRS and delayed bleeding between two treatment groups. The incidence of HRS was 15.8 % (43/273) and the gross morphology (flat or depressed) was identified as a significant factor associated with HRS. The incidence of delayed bleeding was 8.4 % (23/273) and the gross morphology (flat) and the presence of submucosal invasive cancer were identified as the associated risk factors for delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The incidences of delayed bleeding and HRS identified by second-look endoscopy were not affected by PPI infusion methods. Flat or depressed morphologic lesions and submucosal invasive cancer should be closely monitored.

Intermittent vs continuous proton pump inhibitor therapy for high-risk bleeding ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Current guidelines recommend an intravenous bolus dose of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by continuous PPI infusion after endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers. Substitution of intermittent PPI therapy, if similarly effective as bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI therapy, would decrease the PPI dose, costs, and resource use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare intermittent PPI therapy with the currently recommended bolus plus continuous-infusion PPI regimen for reduction of ulcer rebleeding.

DATA SOURCES

Searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through December 2013; US and European gastroenterology meeting abstracts from 2009 to 2013; and bibliographies of systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers (active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) comparing intermittent doses of PPIs and the currently recommended regimen (80-mg intravenous bolus dose of a PPI followed by an infusion of 8 mg/h for 72 hours).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Duplicate independent data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model or a random effects model if statistical heterogeneity was present.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was rebleeding within 7 days; additional predefined outcomes included rebleeding within 3 and 30 days, need for urgent intervention, mortality, red blood cell transfusion, and length of hospital stay. The primary hypothesis, defined before initiation of the literature review, was that intermittent use of PPIs was noninferior to bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs, with the noninferiority margin predefined as an absolute risk difference of 3%.

RESULTS

The risk ratio of rebleeding within 7 days for intermittent vs bolus plus continuous infusion of PPIs was 0.72 (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.97) and the absolute risk difference was -2.64% (upper boundary of 1-sided 95% CI, -0.28%, which is well below the predefined noninferiority margin of 3%). Risk ratios for rebleeding within 30 days and 3 days, mortality, and urgent interventions were less than 1 and mean differences for blood transfusion and hospital length of stay were less than 0, indicating that no summary estimate showed an increased risk with intermittent therapy. The upper boundaries of 95% CIs for absolute risk differences were less than 1.50% for all predefined rebleeding outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intermittent PPI therapy is comparable to the current guideline-recommended regimen of intravenous bolus plus a continuous infusion of PPIs in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers. Guidelines should be revised to recommend intermittent PPI therapy.

Predictors of early rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to high-risk lesions

BACKGROUND

In an era of increasingly shortened admissions, data regarding predictors of early rebleeding among patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) exhibiting high-risk stigmata (HRS) having undergone endoscopic hemostasis are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To determine predictors of early rebleeding, defined as rebleeding before completion of recommended 72 h intravenous proton pump inhibitor infusion postendoscopic hemostasis.

METHODS

Data from a national registry of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (the REASON registry) were accessed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were sequentially performed to identify significant independent predictors among a comprehensive list of clinical and laboratory characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients underwent endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS. Forty patients rebled ≤72 h thereafter (32.5% female, mean [± SD] age 70.2 ± 11.8 years, 2.88 ± 2.11 comorbidities), while 21 rebled later (38.1% female, mean 70.5 ± 14.1 years of age, 2.62 ± 2.06 comorbidities). Hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate was identified as the sole independent significant predictor of early rebleeding versus later among both NVUGIB and, more specifically, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (OR 7.94 [95% CI 1.80 to 35.01]; P<0.01, and OR 8.41 [95% CI 1.54 to 46.10]; P=0.014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When attempting to determine the optimal duration of pharmacotherapy and timing of discharge for patients following endoscopic hemostasis for NVUGIB with HRS, it is noteworthy that individuals who present with hematemesis or bright red blood per nasogastric tube aspirate are at particularly high risk for rebleeding within the first 72 h.

Management of GI emergencies: peptic ulcer acute bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a common medical emergency. Management of acute ulcer bleeding requires prompt assessment for risk stratification, evaluation for early endoscopy, initiation of pharmacotherapy and treatment of co-morbid diseases. Tremendous advances in endoscopic technique and pharmacotherapy in the past few decades have reduced recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality of the disease. Strategies to minimize recurrence have been defined for various types of peptic ulcers. This article reviews the current management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Challenges in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency worldwide, a major cause of which are bleeding peptic ulcers. Endoscopic treatment and acid suppression with proton-pump inhibitors are cornerstones in the management of the disease, and both treatments have been shown to reduce mortality. The role of emergency surgery continues to diminish. In specialised centres, radiological intervention is increasingly used in patients with severe and recurrent bleeding who do not respond to endoscopic treatment. Despite these advances, mortality from the disorder has remained at around 10%. The disease often occurs in elderly patients with frequent comorbidities who use antiplatelet agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and anticoagulants. The management of such patients, especially those at high cardiothrombotic risk who are on anticoagulants, is a challenge for clinicians. We summarise the published scientific literature about the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, identify directions for future clinical research, and suggest how mortality can be reduced.

Second-look endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease: a decision-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Second-look endoscopy after initial therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease may decrease the risk of rebleeding; however, it is not recommended routinely. Understanding conditions under which second-look endoscopy is beneficial might be useful for clinical decision making.

METHODS

Using a decision model, literature-based probabilities, and Medicare reimbursement costs, we compared routine second-look endoscopy with no second-look endoscopy. We measured rebleeding, need for surgery, hospital mortality, and costs, and calculated the cost to avoid each outcome, expressed as the number needed to treat, along with the cost per outcome prevented.

RESULTS

In the base case, routine second-look endoscopy reduced rebleeding from 16% to 10% (needed to treat=16) but had no effect on other outcomes. The cost to prevent 1 case of rebleeding was nearly $13,000. Threshold analysis revealed a rebleeding threshold of 31% to neutralize the cost difference between routine second-look endoscopy and no routine second-look endoscopy. If routine second-look endoscopy was 100% effective in preventing rebleeding, then the rebleeding threshold for cost neutrality would be 17.5%. When rebleeding risks after the index endoscopy and second-look endoscopy were simultaneously considered, the cost per bleed prevented ranged from a cost savings of $165 when the respective risks were 25% and 5%, to a cost of nearly $33,000 when the risks were 20% and 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that routine second-look endoscopy is not indicated after therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer disease. However, if rebleeding risk is 31% or greater, then routine second-look endoscopy reduces this risk at no additional cost.

Effect of intravenous proton pump inhibitor regimens and timing of endoscopy on clinical outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration and the optimal timing of endoscopy in acute peptic ulcer bleeding remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine the most efficient PPI regimen and optimal timing of endoscopy.

METHODS

  Consecutive patients with suspected bleeding peptic ulcers were enrolled and randomized to receive either a standard regimen or a high-dose intensive intravenous regimen. Only patients with bleeding peptic ulcers diagnosed at initial endoscopy continued the study. High-risk patients received endoscopic hemostasis. The primary outcome measure of recurrent bleeding was compared between the two dosage regimens and between early and late endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures compared included need for endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion, hospital stay, surgery and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 875 patients completed the study. Recurrent bleeding occurred in 11.0% in the standard regimen group, statistically higher than that in the intensive regimen group (6.4%, P=0.02). Mean units of blood transfused and duration of hospital stay were also higher in the standard regimen group (P<0.001 for each compared to intensive regimen group). However, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in the need for endoscopic hemostasis, need for surgery, and mortality. Recurrence of bleeding was similar between the early and late endoscopy groups. Units of blood transfused and length of hospital stay were both significantly reduced with early endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

High-dose PPI infusion is more efficacious in reducing rebleeding rate, blood transfusion requirements and hospital stay. Early endoscopy is safe and more effective than late endoscopy.

Risk factors influencing the outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding in end stage renal diseases after initial endoscopic haemostasis

Background and Aims:  Patients suffering from peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD) may encounter more adverse outcomes. The primary objective is to investigate the risk factors that influence the outcomes of ESRD and chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with PU bleeding after successful initial endoscopic haemostasis. Methods:  A total of 540 patients with PU bleeding after initial endoscopic haemostasis in a tertiary hospital were investigated retrospectively. They were sorted into three groups after randomised age-matched adjustment: ESRD group (n = 90), CKD group (n = 90) and control group (n = 360). Main outcome measurements were rebleeding, requirement for blood transfusion and surgery, length of hospital stay and mortality. Results:  The rebleeding rates were 43% for the ESRD group vs. 21% for the CKD group vs. 12% for the control group (overall p = < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed the predictors of rebleeding were ESRD, time to endoscope, and non-high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) users. The risk factors for bleeding-related mortality were presence of moderate degree of CKD and ESRD group, time to endoscope, and Rockall score. All-cause mortality was related to presence of moderate degree of CKD and ESRD group, platelet count, time to endoscope, Rockall score and length of hospital stay. Conclusions:  ESRD patients who suffered from PU bleeding were at risk of excessive rebleeding and mortality with frequent occurrence of delayed rebleeding. This study suggests that early endoscopy for initial haemostasis and high-dose intravenous PPI are associated with the reduction of rebleeding risk especially in patients with high Rockall scores.

Is routine second-look endoscopy effective after endoscopic hemostasis in acute peptic ulcer bleeding? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Routine second-look endoscopy in modern-era peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with PUB exhibiting high-risk stigmata after standard medical care and endoscopic therapy.

DESIGN

Comprehensive literature searches (1990-2011) were performed, seeking randomized trials comparing a routine with an as-needed second endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery and mortality. Subanalyses assessed the influence of study quality, rebleeding definitions, endoscopic hemostasis modality, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapies. Analyses were performed with Revman 5.1. Results are shown as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Only 4 published articles completely reporting studies and 4 abstracts (of 577 citations) were included (938 patients). Rebleeding was significantly decreased by a routine second-look endoscopy (OR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.81), as was surgery (OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), but not mortality (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.26-1.62). Results remained robust with varying definitions of rebleeding, but not with varying endoscopic hemostasis modalities and PPI therapies; the only trial in which high-dose PPI was used did not show a benefit of a second-look endoscopy. When removing the 2 trials that included patients at highest risk of rebleeding, no significant benefit attributable to a second-look endoscopy was noted (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.00).

LIMITATIONS

The small number of trials and patients in each of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of high-dose PPI, especially in patients at very high risk (eg, active bleeding), routine second-look endoscopy appears effective in these selected patients with PUB. However, the generalizability of these results to the era of high-dose PPI and otherwise unselected patients with high-risk stigmata is unclear.

A real world report on intravenous high-dose and non-high-dose proton-pump inhibitors therapy in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding

Background and Study Aims. The optimal dose of intravenous proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for the prevention of peptic ulcer (PU) rebleeding remains controversial. This study aimed to understand the real world experiences in prescribing high-dose PPI and non-high-dose PPI for preventing rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of high-risk PU. Patients and Methods. A total of 220 subjects who received high-dose and non-high-dose pantoprazole for confirmed acute PU bleeding that were successfully treated endoscopically were enrolled. They were divided into rebleeding (n = 177) and non-rebleeding groups (n = 43). Randomized matching of the treatment-control group was performed. Patients were randomly selected for non-high-dose and high-dose PPI groups (n = 44 in each group). Results. Univariate analysis showed, significant variables related to rebleeding were female, higher creatinine levels, and higher Rockall scores (≧6). Before case-control matching, the high-dose PPI group had higher creatinine level, higher percentage of shock at presentation, and higher Rockall scores. After randomized treatment-control matching, no statistical differences were observed for rebleeding rates between the high-dose and non-high-dose groups after case-control matching. Conclusion. This study suggests that intravenous high-dose pantoprazole may not be superior to non-high-dose regimen in reducing rebleeding in high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy.

A review of stress-related mucosal disease

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the human and veterinary literature regarding stress-related mucosal disease (SRMD) pathogenesis, patient risk factors, and therapeutic options for prophylaxis and treatment.

ETIOLOGY

SRMD is a common sequela of critical illness in human patients. Development of SRMD results from splanchnic hypoperfusion, reperfusion injury, and exposure of the gastric mucosa to acid, pepsin, and bile acids following breakdown of the gastric mucosal defense system. Human patients with the highest risk of stress ulceration include those with respiratory failure necessitating mechanical ventilation greater than 48 h or coagulopathy. Currently, little is known about the incidence and pathophysiology of SRMD in critically ill veterinary patients.

DIAGNOSIS

A presumptive diagnosis can be made in high-risk patient populations following detection of occult or gross blood in nasogastric tube aspirates, hematemesis, or melena. Definitive diagnosis is achieved via esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Lesions are localized to the acid-producing portions of the stomach, the fundus, and body.

THERAPY

Therapy is aimed at optimization of tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Pharmacologic interventions are instituted to increase intraluminal pH and augment natural gastric defenses. Histamine(2)-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, and sucralfate are the mainstays of therapy. In people, clinically significant bleeding may necessitate additional interventions (eg, packed red blood cell transfusions, endoscopic, or surgical hemostasis).

PROGNOSIS

Mortality is increased in people with clinically significant bleeding compared to those patients who do not bleed. Institution of prophylaxis is recommended in high-risk patients. However, no consensus exists regarding initiation of prophylaxis, preference of frontline drug class, or indication for discontinuation of therapy. The prognosis of veterinary patients with SRMD remains unknown at this time.

Comparison of argon plasma coagulation in management of upper gastrointestinal angiodysplasia and gastric antral vascular ectasia hemorrhage

Background

Vascular ectasias, including gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) and angiodysplasia, are increasingly recognized as important sources of gastrointestinal bleeding. This study investigated and compared the efficacies and outcomes of treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) angiodysplasia and GAVE hemorrhage by endoscopic argon plasma coagulation (APC).

Methods

From January 2006 to December 2009, 46 patients diagnosed with upper GI bleeding caused by angiodysplasia or GAVE at a tertiary hospital were recruited into this study. They included 26 males and 20 females with an average age of 65.6 years (range, 45–90 years). All patients underwent APC for hemostasis during an endoscopic procedure. Parameters such as underlying co-morbidities, number of endoscopic treatment sessions, recurrent bleeding, and clinical outcomes during follow-up were analyzed.

Results

The 46 patients with UGI vascular ectasia hemorrhage included 27 patients with angiodysplasia and 19 with GAVE. The patients with angiodysplasia were older than those with GAVE (71.6 ± 10.2 years versus 61.8 ± 11.9 years, P = 0.005). More GAVE patients than angiodysplasia patients had co-existing liver cirrhosis (63.2% versus 25.9%, P = 0.012). The patients with GAVE had a higher rate of recurrent bleeding (78.9% versus 7.4%, P < 0.001) and required more treatment sessions to achieve complete hemostasis (2.4 ± 1.4 versus 1.1 ± 0.1, P < 0.001) than those with angiodysplasia. Univariate analysis demonstrated that age greater than 60 years (odds ratio (OR) = 8.929, P = 0.003), GAVE (OR = 0.021, P < 0.001), and previous radiation therapy (OR = 11.667, P = 0.032) were associated with higher rates of recurrent bleeding. Further multivariate analysis revealed that GAVE was the only independent risk factor for recurrent bleeding after APC treatment (OR = 0.027, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Endoscopic hemostasis with APC is a safe treatment modality for both angiodysplasia and vascular ectasia bleeding. The efficacy of APC treatment is greater for angiodysplasia than for vascular ectasia bleeding. GAVE patients have a higher recurrent bleeding rate and may require multiple treatment sessions for sustained hemostasis.

Bleeding peptic ulcer: characteristics and outcomes in Newcastle, NSW

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease risk factors have changed, as has the impact of treatment on morbidity and mortality. Recent data on clinical presentation and outcome are sparse in Australia.

AIM

To determine the characteristics and outcome of patients presenting with a bleeding peptic ulcer to a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

We evaluated patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer bleeding between 2004 and 2008 at a tertiary referral hospital. Variables assessed included demographic data, comorbidities, medication use and Rockall score. Outcomes of interest were the time to endoscopy, peptic ulcer treatment, transfusion requirements, urgent surgery and survival.

RESULTS

Peptic ulcers were confirmed in 265 patients (55% male), of which 145 were gastric and 119 duodenal. The mean age was 71 years. On admission 38% of patients had haemodynamic instability and 92% had one or more comorbidity. Consumption of ulcerogenic medications at the time of admission was frequent (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 22%, aspirin 41%, clopidogrel or warfarin 10%) and proton pump inhibitors infrequent (15%). A gastroenterologist managed all patients according to their usual practice. Only a minority of patients received over three units of packed red cells. Few patients were referred for surgery (3%) or died (3%), but both events were significantly higher for the duodenal ulcer group.

CONCLUSION

The characteristics and outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding have changed. Peptic ulcer disease remains a public health problem with modifiable risk factors, such as Helicobacter pylori infection and NSAIDs, which should be targeted to reduce the burden of illness.

Randomised clinical trial: high-dose vs. standard-dose proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of recurrent haemorrhage after combined endoscopic haemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

The optimal dosage of intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding remains unclear.

AIM

To compare the rebleeding rate of high-dose and standard-dose PPI use after endoscopic haemostasis.

METHODS

A total of 201 patients with bleeding ulcers undergoing endoscopic treatment with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation were randomised to receive a high-dose regimen (80 mg bolus, followed by pantoprazole 8 mg/h infusion, n = 100) or a standard-dose regimen (pantoprazole 40 mg bolus daily, n = 101). After 72 h, all patients were given 40 mg pantoprazole daily orally for 27 days.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in mean units of blood transfused, length of hospitalisation ≦5 days, surgical or radiological interventions and mortality within 30 days between two groups. Bleeding recurred within 30 days in six patients [6.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-11.1%] in the high-dose group, as compared to five patients (5.2%, 95% CI 0.6-9.7%) in the standard-dose group (P = 0.77). The stepwise Cox regression analysis showed end-stage renal disease, haematemesis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio: 37.15, 10.07, 9.12, 95% CI: 6.76-204.14, 2.07-49.01, 1.66-50.00 respectively) were independent risk factors for rebleeding and Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with lower risk of rebleeding (hazard ratio: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.04-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Following combined endoscopic haemostasis of bleeding ulcers, co-morbidities, haematemesis and H. pylori Status, but not PPI dosage, are associated with rebleeding (http://www.Clinical Trials.gov.ID: NCT00709046).

Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole in preventing rebleeding among low risk patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer after initial endoscopic hemostasis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that high-dose proton-pumps inhibitors (PPI) do not further reduce the rate of rebleeding compared to non-high-dose PPIs but we do not know whether intravenous non-high-dose PPIs reduce rebleeding rates among patients at low risk (Rockall score < 6) or among those at high risk, both compared to high-dose PPIs. This retrospective case-controlled study aimed to identify the subgroups of these patients that might benefit from treatment with non-high-dose PPIs.

METHODS

Subjects who received high dose and non-high-dose pantoprazole for confirmed acute PU bleeding at a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled (n = 413). They were divided into sustained hemostasis (n = 324) and rebleeding groups (n = 89). The greedy method was applied to allow treatment-control random matching (1:1). Patients were randomly selected from the non-high-dose and high-dose PPI groups who had a high risk peptic ulcer bleeding (n = 104 in each group), and these were then subdivided to two subgroups (Rockall score ≥ 6 vs. < 6, n = 77 vs. 27).

RESULTS

An initial low hemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, and Rockall score were independent factors associated with rebleeding. After case-control matching, the significant variables between the non-high-dose and high-dose PPI groups for a Rockall score ≥ 6 were the rebleeding rate, and the amount of blood transfused. Case-controlled matching for the subgroup with a Rockall score < 6 showed that the rebleeding rate was similar for both groups (11.1% in each group).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous non-high-dose pantoprazole is equally effective as high-dose pantoprazole when treating low risk patients with a Rockall sore were < 6 who have bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis.

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.

Pharmacologic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are many clinical outcome measures for evaluation of the effectiveness of a pharmacologic agent in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). As a preemptive treatment, it should reduce the need for emergency endoscopy and endoscopic intervention, facilitate the efficient identification of the bleeding source and, hence, shorten procedure time and reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. As an effective adjunctive therapy after endoscopic hemostasis, it should reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding and the need to repeat endoscopic hemostasis. This article provides an overview of different pharmacologic agents that have been used in the management of UGIB.

Comparison of infusion or low-dose proton pump inhibitor treatments in upper gastrointestinal system bleeding

BACKGROUND

The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain.

AIM

To compare the treatment effects of continuous infusion and low-dose esomeprazole therapies in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study compared continuous infusion of esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg∕h continuous infusion for 72 h) and low-dose esomeprazole (40 mg twice daily IV) treatments in GI bleeding patients with peptic ulcer presenting a high risk of re-bleeding, who were administered a successful endoscopic homeostasis. The primary end point was the occurrence of re-bleeding during hospitalization and within one month of discharge. Secondary outcomes were defined as duration of hospitalization, need of transfusion, surgical treatment, and mortality rate. After 72 h, both groups were switched to oral esomeprazole therapy for one-month.

RESULTS

A hundred thirty-two subjects were enrolled. Re-bleeding occurred in 11 (16.7%) patients in the infusion therapy group and in 12 (18.2%) patients in the low-dose group (P=0.819) within the first 72 h. No patient experienced re-bleeding in the first month following discharge. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion need, durations of hospitalization, need for surgery and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

PPI infusion therapy following endoscopic hemostasis treatment was not found superior to low-dose PPI therapy in the terms of re-bleeding, need of surgery and mortality.

Randomized controlled trial of standard versus high-dose intravenous omeprazole after endoscopic therapy in high-risk patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding

Background

Rebleeding from peptic ulcers is a major contributor to death. This study compared standard (40-mg intravenous infusion of omeprazole once daily for 3 days) and high-dose (80-mg bolus of omeprazole followed by 8-mg/h infusion for 72 h) in reducing the rebleeding rate (primary endpoint), need for surgery, duration of hospital stay and mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy.

Methods

This was a single-institution prospective randomized controlled study based on a postulated therapeutic equivalence of the two treatments. All patients who had successful endoscopic haemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer (Forrest classification Ia, Ib, IIa or IIb) were recruited. Informed consent was obtained and patients were randomized to receive standard- or high-dose infusions of intravenous omeprazole.

Results

Two (3 per cent) of 61 patients in the high-dose group and ten (16 per cent) of 61 in the standard-dose group exhibited rebleeding, a difference of − 13 (95 per cent confidence interval − 25 to − 2) per cent. The upper limit of the one-sided confidence interval exceeded a predefined equivalence absolute difference of 16 per cent. Equivalence of standard- and high-dose omeprazole in preventing rebleeding was not demonstrated.

Conclusion

Intravenous standard-dose omeprazole was inferior to high-dose omeprazole in preventing rebleeding after endoscopic haemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding. Registration number: NCT00519519 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Esomeprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of acute bleeding in the upper GI tract. The incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding has slowly decreased and endoscopic treatment options have improved; nevertheless, it remains a very common condition with a 7-15% mortality. Acidic environments have a negative effect on hemostasis. Therefore, acid inhibitors have been applied in the adjuvant treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, both in preventing rebleeding and in treating the underlying cause. This requires profound acid suppressive therapy aiming for a rapid onset of effect and a persistent intragastric pH above 6. This can only be achieved by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Esomeprazole is the S-isomer of omeprazole, and the first PPI to consist of only the active isomer. A number of studies have compared esomeprazole with other PPIs, demonstrating a faster and more persistent increase in intragastric pH with the use of esomeprazole than with other agents. Continuous high-dose intravenous treatment with esomeprazole decreases rebleeding, surgery, transfusion rates and hospital days in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Characteristics and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage remains a problem in spite of improved diagnosis and management. There is sparse knowledge of recent epidemiology and outcomes. We wanted to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage over a 4-year period in a tertiary referral hospital.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage to John Hunter Hospital between August 2004 and December 2008. Variables of interest included age, gender, co-morbidities, and time to endoscopy. Main outcomes included etiology, treatment, and survival. Variceal and non-variceal bleeds were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

There were 792 admissions from 734 unique patients (61% male) with a mean age of 66 years. The most frequent causes of non-variceal bleeds (88%) included ulcers 265 (33%); Mallory Weiss tear 91 (11%); esophagitis 60 (8%), and malignancy 29 (4%). Most patients had one or more co-morbidity (74%). Transfusion was not employed in 41%. Overall mortality was 4.0% (5.4% in the variceal and 3.9% in the non-variceal group). Only 1.9% of patients had surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are overall elderly with significant co-morbidities. Our overall mortality and surgery rates are lower than in previously published international data.

Predictors of rebleeding after initial hemostasis with epinephrine injection in high-risk ulcers

AIM: To identify the predictors of rebleeding after initial hemostasis with epinephrine injection (EI) in patients with high-risk ulcers.

METHODS: Recent studies have revealed that endoscopic thermocoagulation, or clips alone or combined with EI are superior to EI alone to arrest ulcer bleeding. However, the reality is that EI monotherapy is still common in clinical practice. From October 2006 to April 2008, high-risk ulcer patients in whom hemorrhage was stopped after EI monotherapy were studied using clinical, laboratory and endoscopic variables. The patients were divided into 2 groups: sustained hemostasis and rebleeding.

RESULTS: A total of 175 patients (144, sustained hemostasis; 31, rebleeding) were enrolled. Univariate analysis revealed that older age (≥ 60 years), advanced American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) status (category III, IV and V), shock, severe anemia (hemoglobin < 80 g/L), EI dose ≥ 12 mL and severe bleeding signs (SBS) including hematemesis or hematochezia were the factors which predicted rebleeding. However, only older age, severe anemia, high EI dose and SBS were independent predictors. Among 31 rebleeding patients, 10 (32.2%) underwent surgical hemostasis, 15 (48.4%) suffered from delayed hemostasis causing major complications and 13 (41.9%) died of these complications.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic EI monotherapy in patients with high-risk ulcers should be avoided. Initial hemostasis with thermocoagulation, clips or additional hemostasis after EI is mandatory for such patients to ensure better hemostatic status and to prevent subsequent rebleeding, surgery, morbidity and mortality.

A randomized controlled trial comparing two different dosages of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding

AIM

The optimal dosage of proton pump inhibitor in bleeding peptic ulcers remains controversial. The aim was to compare the clinical effectiveness of two doses of infusional pantoprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Peptic ulcer patients (n= 120) with bleeding stigmata were enrolled after successful endoscopic therapy. After an initial bolus injection of 80 mg pantoprazole, patients were randomized to receive continuously infused pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h (i.e. 160 mg day(-1)) for 3 days. Clinical outcomes between the two groups within 14 days were compared, with 14-day recurrent bleeding regarded as the primary end-point.

RESULTS

Both groups (n= 60 each) were well matched in demographic and clinical factors upon entry. Bleeding totally recurred in 11 (9.2%) patients, with six (10%) in the 192 mg day(-1) group and five (8.3%) in the 160 mg day(-1) group (relative risk of bleeding recurrence between two treatments 1.2; 95% CI 0.39, 3.72). All secondary outcomes between the two groups were similar, including the amount of blood transfusion (mean 1179 ml vs. 1203 ml, P > 0.1), hospital stay (mean 9.5 days vs. 9.9 days, P > 0.1), need for surgery (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1), and mortality (n= 1 vs. n= 0, P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Following endoscopic haemostasis, infusional pantoprazole at either 192 mg day(-1) or 40 mg every 6 h appear similar.

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.

High-dose vs low-dose proton pump inhibitors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) vs low-dose PPIs for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible trials were RCTs that compared high-dose PPI with low-dose PPI following endoscopic hemostasis. The primary endpoint was rebleeding; secondary endpoints were patient numbers that needed surgery, and mortality. The meta-analysis was performed with a fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS: Nine eligible RCTs including 1342 patients were retrieved. The results showed that high-dose intravenous PPI was not superior to low-dose intravenous PPI in reducing rebleeding [odds ratio (OR) = 1.091, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.777-1.532], need for surgery (OR = 1.522, 95% CI: 0.643-3.605) and mortality (OR = 1.022, 95% CI: 0.476-2.196). Subgroup analysis according to different region revealed no difference in rebleeding rate between Asian patients (OR = 0.831, 95% CI, 0.467-1.480) and European patients (OR = 1.263, 95% CI: 0.827-1.929).

CONCLUSION: Low-dose intravenous PPI can achieve the same efficacy as high-dose PPI following endoscopic hemostasis.

[New data on the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

Gastric pH should be maintained at very high values to prevent peptic ulcer rebleeding. A recent randomized trial, however, has confirmed that intravenous infusion of esomeprazole decreases the rebleeding rate after endoscopic therapy. In addition, the use of proton pump inhibitor perfusion at admission before diagnostic endoscopy reduces the need for endoscopic therapy and shortens the mean length of hospital stay.

Role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a serious medical problem with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy significantly reduces further bleeding, surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and is now recommended as the first hemostatic modality for these patients. The efficacy of large-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in reducing re-bleeding after endoscopic therapy has been supported by evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. It may be premature to recommend small-dose intravenous injection PPI after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding ulcers. An updated systematic review shows that PPI therapy before endoscopy significantly reduces the proportion with major stigmata and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy. Some studies show that there is no significant difference between oral and intravenous PPIs in raising intragastric pH. However, clinical data is lacking in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding to date.

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

How evidence-based are current guidelines for managing patients with peptic ulcer bleeding?

Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2-receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. However, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs oral). There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a significant benefit of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Presently, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.