Factors related to the failure of endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding gastric ulcer

Rebleeding in patients with delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

OBJECTIVES

Delayed bleeding is a major adverse event in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Some patients may experience rebleeding after successful hemostasis for delayed bleeding, yet the details of rebleeding remain unclear. We aimed to clarify the frequency and risk factors of rebleeding.

METHODS

Among 11,452 patients who underwent ESD for EGC at 33 institutions in Japan between 2013 and 2016, we analyzed 489 patients showing delayed bleeding. The rate of rebleeding was investigated. Subsequently, 15 candidate variables were evaluated for their influence on the risk of rebleeding via logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Rebleeding occurred in 11.2% (55/489) of the enrolled patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that warfarin [odds ratio (OR), 2.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.26-5.84] and a resection size >40 mm (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.08-3.67) were independent risk factors for rebleeding. In the analysis of the management of warfarin after index bleeding, only warfarin discontinuation (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.37-9.78) was significantly associated with rebleeding in comparison with no use of warfarin. However, many rebleeding events (75.0%) occurred following the resumption of warfarin. The rebleeding rate during discontinuation status and that in taking warfarin (continuation or resumption) were 6.1% and 20.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebleeding was not a rare event in patients experiencing delayed bleeding after ESD for EGC. In addition to having a resection size >40 mm, warfarin usage placed patients at high risk for rebleeding, especially at the timing of its resumption following discontinuation as well as its continuation.

Validity of the Pre-endoscopic Scoring Systems for the Prediction of the Failure of Endoscopic Hemostasis in Bleeding Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcers

Objective Although several pre-endoscopic scoring systems have been used to predict the mortality or the need for intervention for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, their usefulness to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers has not yet been fully investigated. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), the clinical Rockall score (CRS), and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 226 consecutive emergency endoscopic cases with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers between April 2010 and September 2016. The study outcome was the failure of first endoscopic hemostasis. The GBS, CRS, and AIMS65 scores were assessed for their ability to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis using a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results Eight cases (3.5%) failed to achieve first endoscopic hemostasis. Surgery was required in six cases, and interventional radiology was required in two cases. The GBS was superior to both the CRS and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis [area under the curve, 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90), 0.65 (0.56-0.74) and 0.75 (0.56-0.95), respectively]. No failure of endoscopic hemostasis was noted in cases in which the patient scored less than GBS 10 and CRS 2. Conclusion The GBS was the most useful scoring system for the prediction of failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. The GBS was also useful in identifying the patients who did not require surgery or interventional radiology.

Different clinical characteristics associated with acute bleeding and delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Few studies have classified risk factors according to the onset time of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (post-ESD bleeding).

METHODS

We studied 1767 consecutive lesions in patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer from December 2006 through June 2016. Patients who had a remnant stomach or who had undergone reconstruction with a gastric tube were excluded. Post-ESD bleeding was classified into acute bleeding (0-5 days after ESD) and delayed bleeding (6 or more days after ESD), and the risk factors for each type of bleeding were compared.

RESULTS

Post-ESD bleeding occurred in 150 (8.5%) of 1767 lesions. Bleeding was acute in 129 lesions (7.3%) and delayed in 21 (1.2%). Acute post-ESD bleeding was frequently associated with lesions located in the distal stomach, expanded indications or non-indicated lesions, a specimen diameter of ≥40 mm, and antithrombotic therapy. Delayed post-ESD bleeding was often associated with lesions located in the proximal stomach, hemodialysis, and antithrombotic therapy. Among 334 lesions in patients who received antithrombotic therapy, post-ESD bleeding occurred in 47 lesions (14.1%). Independent risk factors for post-ESD bleeding were a specimen diameter of ≥40 mm and treatment with 2 or more antithrombotic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute post-ESD bleeding and delayed post-ESD bleeding were associated with different clinical characteristics. Antithrombotic therapy is a risk factor for post-ESD bleeding in both the acute and delayed phases.

Independent risk factors of 30-day outcomes in 1264 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding in the USA: large ulcers do worse

BACKGROUND

Predictors of worse outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and death) of peptic ulcer bleeds (PUBs) are essential indicators because of significant morbidity and mortality rates of PUBs. However those have been infrequently reported since changes in medical therapy (PPI, proton pump inhibitors) and application of newer endoscopic haemostatic technique.

AIMS

To determine: (i) independent risk factors for 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death and (ii) whether ulcer size is an independent predictor of major outcomes in patients with severe PUB after successful endoscopic haemostasis and treatment with optimal medical (high dose IV PPI) vs. prior treatment (high dose IV histamine 2 antagonists - H2RAs).

METHODS

A large prospectively followed population of patients hospitalised with severe PUBs between 1993 and 2011 at two US tertiary care academic medical centres, stratified by stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) was studied. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, independent risk factors for each outcome (rebleeding, surgery and death) up to 30 days were analysed. Effects for medical treatment (H2RA patients 1993-2005 vs. PPIs 2006-2011) were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1264 patients were included. For ulcers ≥10 mm, the odds of 30-day rebleeding increased 6% per each 10% increase in ulcer size (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.0053). Other risk factors for 30-day rebleeding were major SRH, in-patient start of bleeding, and prior GI bleeding. Major SRH and ulcer size≥10 mm were predictors of 30-day surgery. Risk factors for 30-day death were major SRH, in-patient bleeding, and any initial platelet transfusion or fresh frozen plasma transfusion ≥2 units. Among patients with major SRH and out-patient start of bleeding, larger ulcer size was also a risk factor for death (OR 1.08 per 10% increase in ulcer size, 95% CI 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0095). Ulcer size was a significant independent variable for both time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size is a risk factor for worse outcomes after PUB and should be carefully recorded at initial endoscopy to improve patient triage and management.

What if endoscopic hemostasis fails?: Alternative treatment strategies: surgery

Management of bleeding peptic ulcers is increasingly challenging in an aging population. Endoscopic therapy reduces the need for emergency surgery in bleeding peptic ulcers. Initial endoscopic control offers an opportunity for selecting high-risk ulcers for potential early preemptive surgery. However, such an approach has not been supported by evidence in the literature. Endoscopic retreatment can be an option to control ulcer rebleeding and reduce complications. The success of endoscopic retreatment largely depends on the severity of rebleeding and ulcer characteristics. Large chronic ulcers with urgent bleeding are less likely to respond to endoscopic retreatment. Expeditious surgery is advised.

Outcome and predictive factors of successful transarterial embolization for the treatment of acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Transarterial embolization (TAE) is an effective procedure for the treatment of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Factors associated with clinical success have not been well delineated.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical and clinical successes of TAE for acute GIB in order to identify factors influencing clinical success and in-hospital mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 70 consecutive patients with GIB who underwent angiography and embolization between January 2004 and December 2011. The technical success rate, clinical success rate, and in-hospital mortality were calculated by percentage. Clinical parameters, angiographic, and embolization data were assessed for factors influencing clinical success and in-hospital survival using univariate and multivariate analysis. Statistical significance was set at P value <0.05.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 98.6%. The primary clinical success rate was 71.4% and the secondary clinical success rate after repeat embolization was 78.6%. Bowel infarction was the most serious complication of three (4.3%) patients. Failure to achieve 30-day hemostasis can be predicted in patients who have one or more of the following factors: hemoglobin concentration <8 g/dL (P = 0.004), coagulopathy (P = 0.005), upper GIB (P = 0.02), contrast extravasation (P = 0.012), and more than one embolized vessel (P = 0.005). In-hospital survival is affected by the amount of transfused packed red blood cells before embolization (P = 0.008) and post-embolization bowel infarction (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

TAE is a feasible and effective management of acute GIB with high technical and clinical success rates. The factors influencing clinical success include hemoglobin concentration, coagulopathy, upper GIB, contrast extravasation, and more than one embolized vessel. The number of units of transfused packed red blood cells and post-embolization bowel infarction are important factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

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.

Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Determining the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) may be useful for establishing additional haemostatic measures in very high-risk patients.

AIM

To identify predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches were performed to identify studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for PUB. All searches and data abstraction were performed in duplicate. A parameter was considered to be an independent predictor of rebleeding when it was detected as prognostic by multivariate analyses in ≥2 studies. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) were calculated for prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the prespecified inclusion criteria. Pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Haemodynamic instability: significant in 9 of 13 studies evaluating the variable (pOR: 3.30, 95% CI: 2.57-4.24); (ii) Haemoglobin value: significant in 2 of 10 (pOR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.62) and (iii) Transfusion: significant in two of six (pOR not calculable). Endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Active bleeding: significant in 6 of 12 studies (pOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.31-2.22); (ii) Large ulcer size: significant in 8 of 12 studies (pOR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.98-4.00); (iii) Posterior duodenal ulcer location: significant in four of eight studies (pOR: 3.83, 95% CI: 1.38-10.66) and (iv) High lesser gastric curvature ulcer location: significant in three of eight studies (pOR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.69-4.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Major predictors for rebleeding in patients receiving endoscopic therapy are haemodynamic instability, active bleeding at endoscopy, large ulcer size, ulcer location, haemoglobin value and the need for transfusion. These risk factors may be useful for guiding clinical management in patients with PUB.

Epidemiology and demographics of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: prevalence, incidence, and mortality

Despite major advances in diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding still is a serious problem in clinical practice. Current evidence indicates that most peptic ulcer bleeding-linked deaths are not a direct sequela of the bleeding ulcer itself. Instead, mortality derives from multiorgan failure, cardiopulmonary conditions, or terminal malignancy, suggesting that improving further current treatments for the bleeding ulcer may have a limited impact on mortality unless supportive therapies are developed for the global management of these patients.

[Classification and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

The upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains the most frequent emergency in gastroenterology. Due to the different therapeutic approach a distinction between the variceal and the non-variceal bleeding has been established. A risk assessment for the individual patient is crucial for timing of the endoscopic procedure as well as for the estimation of prognosis. This review gives an overview on modern therapeutic techniques for both, variceal and non-variceal bleeding highlighting on success rates but also on potential complications of the different therapeutic interventions.

Adrenaline injection plus argon plasma coagulation versus adrenaline injection plus hemoclips for treating high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Several combination endoscopic therapies are currently in use. The present study aimed to compare argon plasma coagulation (APC) + adrenaline injection (AI) with hemoclips + AI for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized trial, 172 patients with major stigmata of peptic ulcer bleeding were randomly assigned to receive APC + AI (n = 89) or hemoclips + AI (n = 83). In the event of rebleeding, the initial modality was used again. Patients in whom treatment or retreatment was unsuccessful underwent emergency surgery. The primary end point of rebleeding rate and secondary end points of initial and definitive hemostasis need for surgery and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in all background variables. Definitive hemostasis was achieved in 85 of 89 (95.5%) of the APC + AI and 82 of 83 (98.8%) of the hemoclips + AI group (P = 0.206). The mean volume of adrenaline injected in the two groups was equal (20.7 mL; P = 0.996). There was no significant difference in terms of initial hemostasis (96.6% versus 98.8%; P = 0.337), rate of rebleeding (11.2% versus 4.8%; P = 0.124), need for surgery (4.5% versus 1.2%; P = 0.266) and mortality (2.2% versus 1.2%; P = 0.526). When compared for the combined end point of mortality plus rebleeding and the need for surgery, there was an advantage for the hemoclip group (6% versus 15.7%, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Hemoclips + AI has no superiority over APC + AI in treating patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. Hemoclips + AI may be superior when a combination of all negative outcomes is considered.

Predicting poor outcome from acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

In conclusion, numerous prediction models identified pre-endoscopic and endoscopic risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage. The risk factors for mortality are different from those of rebleeding. Predictors for rebleeding are usually related to the severity of the bleeding and characteristics of the ulcer, whereas advanced age, physical status of the patient, and comorbidities are important predictors for mortality in addition to those for rebleeding. Future studies should focus on validation of these predictors in a prospective cohort and application of these prediction models to guide clinical management in patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage.

Systematic review of the predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostatic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

An increased knowledge regarding the predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers should improve clinical management and outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the strongest and most consistent predictors of rebleeding to assist in the development of tools to stratify and appropriately manage patients after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for prospective studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers were performed. Relevant studies were identified, and data were abstracted in a duplicate and independent fashion. The primary outcomes sought were significant independent predictors of rebleeding by multivariable analyses in > or =2 studies.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy was 16.4%. The independent pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were hemodynamic instability (significant in 5 of 5 studies; summary odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99-3.51) and comorbid illness (significant in 2 of 7 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range). The independent endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were active bleeding at endoscopy (significant in 5 of 8 studies; summary OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.30-2.55), large ulcer size (significant in 4 of 5 studies; summary OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21-2.80), posterior duodenal ulcer (significant in 2 of 3 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range), and lesser gastric curvature ulcer (significant in 2 of 2 studies; insufficient data to calculate summary OR or report OR range).

CONCLUSIONS

The independent predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic therapy, particularly those that are the strongest and most consistent in the literature, may be used to select patients who are most likely to benefit from aggressive post-hemostasis care, including intensive care unit (ICU) observation and second-look endoscopy. Prospective studies designed to formally assess the relative utilities of these factors in predicting rebleeding and dictating management are needed.

Model to predict rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Following endoscopic therapy, up to 20% of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage experience rebleeding. The aim of the present study was to determine risk factors for recurrent hemorrhage in these patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2004, with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Patients were evaluated for rebleeding within 30 days of successful therapeutic endoscopy. Using the hospital's endoscopic database, 236 patients were identified. Risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression with backward selection. Internal validation was carried out using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Six risk factors were identified: failure to use a proton pump inhibitor post-procedure (P = 0.056), Endoscopically demonstrated bleeding (P = 0.053), peptic ulcer as the bleeding source (P = 0.018), treatment with epinephrine monotherapy (P = 0.0026), post-procedure intravenous or low molecular weight heparin use (P = 0.0014), and moderate or severe cirrhosis (P = 0.032) (PEPTIC). The risk of rebleeding increased as the number of risk factors present increased. The observed rates of rebleeding were: 7.1%, 16.4%, 37.0%, 75.0% and 100% for zero, one, two, three or four risk factors, respectively (no patients had five or six risk factors present). The bias-adjusted area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve for the number of risk factors predicting rebleeding was 0.69.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified six easily remembered risk factors, which, when summed, predict recurrent hemorrhage following endoscopic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Epidemiology of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is an important emergency situation. Population-based epidemiology data are important to get insight in the actual healthcare problem. There are only few recent epidemiological surveys regarding acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Several surveys focusing on peptic ulcer disease showed a significant decrease in admission and mortality of peptic ulcer disease. Several more recent epidemiological surveys show a decrease in incidence of all cause upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding remained stable. Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, responsible for about 50% of all cases, followed by oesophagitis and erosive disease. Variceal bleeding is the cause of bleeding in cirrhotic patients in 50-60%. Rebleeding in upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurs in 7-16%, despite endoscopic therapy. Rebleeding is especially high in variceal bleeding and peptic ulcer bleeding. Mortality ranges between 3 and 14% and did not change in the past 10 years. Mortality is increasing with increasing age and is significantly higher in patients who are already admitted in hospital for co-morbidity. Risk factors for peptic ulcer bleeding are NSAIDs use and H. pylori infection. In patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and using NSAIDs, a protective drug was only used in 10%. COX-2 selective inhibitors do cause less gastroduodenal ulcers compared to non-selective NSAIDs, however, more cardiovascular adverse events are reported. H. pylori infection is found in about 50% of peptic ulcer bleeding patients. H. pylori should be tested for in all ulcer patients and eradication should be given.

Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Hemoclip placement is an effective endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding. Triclip is a novel clipping device with three prongs over the distal end. So far, there is no clinical study concerning the hemostatic effect of triclip placement.

AIM

To determine the hemostatic effect of the triclip as compared with that of the hemoclip.

METHODS

A total of 100 peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels received endoscopic therapy with either hemoclip (N = 50) or triclip placement (N = 50). After obtaining initial hemostasis, they received omeprazole 40 mg intravenous infusion every 12 h for 3 days. The main outcome assessment was hemostatic rate and rebleeding rate at 14 days.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was obtained in 47 patients (94%) of the hemoclip group and in 38 patients (76%) of the triclip group (P= 0.011). Rebleeding episodes, volume of blood transfusion, the hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent operation, and mortality were not statistically different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Hemoclip is superior to triclip in obtaining primary hemostasis in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. In bleeders located over difficult-to-approach sites, hemoclip is more ideal than triclip.

[Acute upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding--how to determine low risk patients for rebleeding and mortality after endoscopic sclerotherapy?]

INTRODUCTION

Successful endoscopic sclerotherapy is effective in securing hemostasis for bleeding lesions and remains the first line and only needed therapy for most of the patients (pts), but bleeding reoccurs in 10% to 30% pts, and 4% to 14% of the pts die after acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The need for hospitalization and its duration for all the bleeding pts is still a controversial question.

AIM

To create the simple scoring system able to determine low risk pts for rebleeding and mortality by establishing the relative importance of risk factors for rebleeding and mortality after successful endoscopic sclerotherapy of acute nonvariceal UGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study included 3 15 pts who where admitted to hospital because of acute nonvariceal UGIB. All of them underwent gastroscopy with successful sclerotherapy within 12 hours after the admission. We investigated the episode of rebleeding and death during the initial hospitalization, and analyzed the following parameters: age, gender, drug intake, shock, bleeding stigmata, location of bleeding lesion and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Rebleeding occurred in 53 pts (16.8%) and was determined by shock, bleeding stigmata and comorbidity. Eleven pts (3.5%) died and shock, rebleeding and comorbidity were all independent, statistically significant predictors of pts' mortality. The numerical scores for determination of pts with different risk levels for rebleeding and mortality have been developed using the significant predictors of rebleeding and death. The score values for rebleeding ranged from 3 to 9 and pts with values < or = 4 had low risk of rebleeding. We identified 59 pts (18.7% of all) with score for rebleeding < or = 4. Score values for mortality risk ranged from 3 to 8 and the values < 5 revealed negligible risk of death. In our group we found 290 pts (92.1% of all) with low mortality score values.

CONCLUSION

Following the successful initial endoscopic sclerotherapy, these scores can help to identify pts with low risk of rebleeding and negligible risk of death, so they can be treated as outpatients.

[Gastrointestinal hemorrhage--hemorrhage from the upper digestive system]

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding represents the commonest emergency managed by gastroenterologists utilizing substantial clinical and economic resources. Manifestations of GI bleeding depend uppon its localization, magnitude and co-morbidity. Although endoscopic haemostasis has significantly improved the outcome of patients with upper GI bleeding, in some cases patients continue to bleed or rebleed after initial control requiaring early elective surgery in order to decrease mortality. Despite recent advances in, both, endoscopic and surgical therapy, mortality rates have remained essentialy unchanged at 6-15%.

A head to head comparison of oral vs intravenous omeprazole for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with a clean base, flat spots and adherent clots

AIM: To compare the effect of intravenous and oral omeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers without high-risk stigmata.

METHODS: This randomized study included 211 patients [112 receiving iv omeprazole protocol (Group 1), 99 receiving po omeprazole 40 mg every 12 h (Group 2)] with a mean age of 52.7. In 144 patients the ulcers showed a clean base, and in 46 the ulcers showed flat spots and in 21 old adherent clots. The endpoints were re-bleeding, surgery, hospital stay, blood transfusion and death. After discharge, re-bleeding and death were re-evaluated within 30 d.

RESULTS: The study groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. Re-bleeding was recorded in 5 patients of Group 1 and in 4 patients of Group 2 (P = 0.879). Three patients in Group 1 and 2 in Group 2 underwent surgery (P = 0.773). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.6 ± 1.6 d in Group 1 vs 4.5 ± 2.6 d in Group 2 (P = 0.710); the mean amounts of blood transfusion were 1.9 ± 1.1 units in Group 1 vs 2.1 ± 1.7 units in Group 2 (P = 0.350). Four patients, two in each group died (P = 0.981). After discharge, a new bleeding occurred in 2 patients of Group 1 and in 1 patient of Group 2, and one patient from Group 1 died.

CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that the effect of oral omeprazole is as effective as intravenous therapy in terms of re-bleeding, surgery, transfusion requirements, hospitalization and mortality in patients with bleeding ulcers with low risk stigmata. These patients can be treated effectively with oral omeprazole.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding--concepts of surgical therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract]

Bleeding of the upper gastrointestinal tract is the main symptom of a variety of possible conditions and still results in considerable mortality. Endoscopy is the first diagnostic modality, enabling rapid therapeutic intervention. In case of intractable or relapsing bleeding, surgery is often inevitable. However, emergency operations result in significantly higher mortality rates. Therefore the option of early elective surgical intervention should be considered for patients at increased risk of relapsing bleeding. If bleeding is symptomatic due to a complex underlying condition such as hemosuccus pancreaticus or hemobilia, angiography is now recognized as the definitive investigation. Angiographic hemostasis can be achieved in most cases. Due to the underlying condition, surgical management still remains the mainstay in treating these patients. This paper reviews surgical strategy in handling upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of bleeding ulcer patients receiving endoscopic epinephrine injection therapy. It remains unclear whether addition of a secondary clip therapy following epinephrine injection may reduce the rebleeding rate of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

One hundred five bleeding ulcer patients with active spurting, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots in ulcer bases.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic combination therapy (n = 52) or diluted epinephrine injection alone (n = 53).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial hemostasis rates and recurrent bleeding rates.

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 51 patients treated with combination therapy and 49 patients with epinephrine injection therapy (98% vs 92%, P = .18). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients in the combination therapy group and 11 patients in the epinephrine injection group (3.8% vs 21%, P = .008). Among the patients with rebleeding, repeated combination therapy was more effective than repeated injection therapy in achieving permanent hemostasis (100% vs 33%, P = .02). No patient required an emergency operation in the combination therapy group. However, 5 patients in the epinephrine injection group underwent emergency surgery to arrest bleeding (0% vs 9%, P = .023).

LIMITATIONS

Treatment outcome of endoscopic hemoclip therapy is related to the techniques of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic combination therapy is superior to epinephrine injection alone in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Factors associated with failure of initial endoscopic hemoclip hemostasis for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic hemoclip is widely used for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. The major difficulty in clinical application of the hemoclip is deployment to the lesion during initial hemostasis. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with the failure of endoscopic hemoclip for initial hemostasis of upper GI bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January to December 2003, we prospectively studied 77 randomized patients with clinical evidence of upper GI bleeding due to either active bleeding or a visible vessel identified by upper GI endoscopy in our emergency department.

RESULTS

Among the 77 patients, 13 (16.9%) failed treatment (Group 1) and 64 (83.1%) were successfully (Group 2) treated by endoscopic hemoclip for lesions related to upper GI bleeding. There were no differences due to gender, blood pressure, initial heart rate, and hemoglobulin before or after endoscopic treatment, platelet count, serum creatinine, and albumin between groups. The mean age of Group 1 was higher than that of Group 2 (73.31+/-9.38 years vs. 65.41+/-16.45 years, respectively; P=0.083). Most patients who did not achieve initial hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclip had upper GI lesions over the gastric antrum and duodenal bulb. Among the 13 patients who failed to achieve endoscopic hemoclip initial hemostasis, four lesions were located over the posterior wall of the antrum, and four lesions over the lesser curvature side of the duodenal bulb.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic hemoclip is an effective hemostatic method for upper GI bleeding. Age, gastric antrum, and duodenal bulb lesions may be associated with the failure of initial hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclip.

Outcome of non-variceal acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in relation to the time of endoscopy and the experience of the endoscopist: a two-year survey

AIM

To prospectively assess the impact of time of endoscopy and endoscopist's experience on the outcome of non-variceal acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding patients in a large teaching hospital.

METHODS

All patients admitted for non-variceal acute upper GI bleeding for over a 2-year period were potentially eligible for this study. They were managed by a team of seven endoscopists on 24-h call whose experience was categorized into two levels (high and low) according to the number of endoscopic hemostatic procedures undertaken before the study. Endoscopic treatment was standardized according to Forrest classification of lesions as well as the subsequent medical therapy. Time of endoscopy was subdivided into two time periods: routine (8 a.m.-5 p.m.) and on-call (5 p.m.-8 a.m.). For each category of experience and time periods rebleeding rate, transfusion requirement, need for surgery, length of hospital stay and mortality we compared. Multivariate analysis was used to discriminate the impact of different variables on the outcomes that were considered.

RESULTS

Study population consisted of 272 patients (mean age 67.3 years) with endoscopic stigmata of hemorrhage. The patients were equally distributed among the endoscopists, whereas only 19% of procedures were done out of working hours. Rockall score and Forrest classification at admission did not differ between time periods and degree of experience. Univariate analysis showed that higher endoscopist's experience was associated with significant reduction in rebleeding rate (14% vs 37%), transfusion requirements (1.8+/-0.6 vs 3.0+/-1.7 units) as well as surgery (4% vs 10%), but not associated with the length of hospital stay nor mortality. By contrast, outcomes did not significantly differ between the two time periods of endoscopy. On multivariate analysis, endoscopist's experience was independently associated with rebleeding rate and transfusion requirements. Odds ratios for low experienced endoscopist were 4.47 for rebleeding and 6.90 for need of transfusion after the endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopist's experience is an important independent prognostic factor for non-variceal acute upper GI bleeding. Urgent endoscopy should be undertaken preferentially by a skilled endoscopist as less expert staff tends to underestimate some risk lesions with a negative influence on hemostasis.

[Endoscopic treatment of bleeding ulcers: has everything been said and done?]

Endoscopic treatment reduces bleeding recurrence, the need for surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding ulcers. However endoscopic treatment fails in 10-15% of patients, leading to high morbidity and mortality. The therapeutic measures with demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk of hemorrhagic recurrence and its complications are combined endoscopic treatment (adrenaline plus a second hemostatic intervention) and proton pump inhibitors. Also useful, although there is less evidence, are immediate resuscitation and <<second look>> endoscopy. Some studies suggest that activated recombinant factor VII infusion or supra-selective arterial embolization can be useful in severe hemorrhage. Further studies are required to determine optimal treatment according to the characteristics of each patient.

Optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although the initial rate of hemostasis achieved by endoscopic epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding is high, bleeding recurs in 14.6% to 35.5% of patients. The aim of this study was to compare rates of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic injection of two different volumes of epinephrine in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 72 patients with peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to 15 to 25 mL or 35 to 45 mL injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. The mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.4 mL: 95% CI [18.7, 20.1] in the 15 to 25 mL group and 41.1 mL: 95% CI [40.0, 42.2] in the 35 to 45 mL group. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 35 of 36 patients (97.2%) in the 15 to 25 mL group and in all 36 patients in the 35 to 45 mL group. The 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.05). For ulcers in the gastric body, the 35 to 45 mL volume was significantly more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding than the 15 to 25 mL volume (0% vs. 31.6%; p = 0.003). For ulcers in other locations, including the gastric antrum and the duodenum, there were no significant differences in the rate of recurrent bleeding between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of 35 to 45 mL of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine is more effective than injection of 15 to 25 mL of the same solution for prevention of recurrent bleeding from ulcers in the body of the stomach.

A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection

BACKGROUND

Outpatient management is safe for patients with non-variceal upper-GI bleeding who are at low risk of recurrent bleeding and death. However, outpatient care cannot be offered to many patients because of the presence of risk factors (severe comorbid disorders, major endoscopic stigmata of bleeding, significant hemorrhage). The present study assessed the safety of outpatient management for selected high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized with upper-GI bleeding because of peptic ulcer with a non-bleeding vessel were eligible for inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were the following: ulcer size less than 15 mm, absence of hypovolemia, no associated severe disease, and appropriate family support. After endoscopic therapy (injection of epinephrine and polidocanol), patients were randomized to outpatient or hospital care. Patients remained in the emergency ward for a minimum of 6 hours before discharge, during which time omeprazole was administered intravenously. Outpatients were contacted by telephone daily during the first 3 days; a 24-hour telephone hotline was provided for any queries. For both groups, outpatient visits were scheduled at 7 to 10 and 30 days after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients were included: 40 were randomized to outpatient care and 42 to hospital care. Clinical and endoscopic variables were similar in both groups. The rate of recurrent bleeding was similar in both groups (4.8% outpatient, 5% hospital). There was no morbidity or mortality in either group at 30 days. Seven patients (17%) randomized to outpatient care received blood transfusion compared with 14 (38%) in the hospital care group (p=0.06). Mean cost of care per patient was significantly lower for the outpatient vs. the hospital group (970 US dollars vs. 1595 US dollars; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Selected patients with bleeding peptic ulcer can be safely managed as outpatients after endoscopic therapy. This policy conserves health care resources without compromising standards of care.

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage: is the surgeon obsolete?

The management of GI hemorrhage has undergone tremendous evolution in recent decades. Once commonly managed by surgeons, the almost continuous introduction of new technologies and pharmacotherapies has dramatically improved clinicians' ability to identify and control sources of bleeding without surgery. Although a gastroenterologist can successfully manage most cases of GI hemorrhage endoscopically, surgical consultation remains an important consideration for the emergency physician in selected cases.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal UGI bleeding is one of the most common emergencies that gastroenterologists encounter, and continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The keys to management are rapid resuscitation and stabilization; appropriate triage based on pre-endoscopic risk factors; early endoscopy to achieve prompt diagnosis and implement hemostatic therapy to high-risk lesions; and aggressive antisecretory therapy (in the case of peptic ulcer bleeding) to reduce the risk of continued or recurrent bleeding.

Endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treating patients of bleeding peptic ulcers with heater probe thermocoagulation and haemoclip is considered to be safe and very effective. Yet, there is no report comparing the haemostatic effects of endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection in these patients.

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of both therapeutic modalities in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 93 patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels were randomised to receive either endoscopic haemoclip (n = 46) or heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection (n = 47). Five patients from the haemoclip group were excluded because of the inability to place the haemoclip.

RESULTS

Initial haemostasis was achieved in 39 patients (95.1%) of the haemoclip group and 47 patients (100%) of the heater probe group (P > 0.1). Rebleeding occurred in four patients (10.3%) of the haemoclip group and three patients (6.4%) of the heater probe group (P > 0.1). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery and the mortality rates were not statistically different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

If the haemoclip can be applied properly, the clinical outcomes of the haemoclip group would be similar to those of the heater probe group in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, if the bleeders are located at the difficult-to-approach sites, heater probe plus hypertonic saline injection is the first choice therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic hemostasis: safe treatment for peptic ulcer patients aged 80 years or older?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, the number of peptic ulcer patients aged 80 years or older has been increasing. However, little information is available concerning therapeutic endoscopy for these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients aged 80 years or older.

METHODS

In this 7-year study, bleeding peptic ulcer patients were divided into group A (>/=80 years old) and group B (<80 years), for which prospective data, endoscopic findings and outcomes of endoscopic treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 459 patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding, the 42 patients (average age 84 +/- 3 years) in group A had a significantly higher incidence of concomitant disease, lower hemoglobin, transfusional requirement over 800 mL and lower serum albumin than the 417 patients (average age 55 +/- 13 years) in group B. Significantly more patients in group A had large gastric ulcers. More patients in group A had ulcers located at the proximal third of the stomach, which is technically difficult to treat endoscopically. Nevertheless, all patients in groups A and B underwent initial hemostasis successfully. The rebleeding rate was not significantly different between group A and B. Neither group had hospital deaths nor complications related to endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients aged 80 years or older is effective and safe. Increasing age may no longer be a risk factor for rebleeding and hospital death after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding: a randomized, comparative trial

BACKGROUND

endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection.

GOALS

to compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine.

STUDY

between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder.

RESULTS

initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15%] of 26 vs. 14 [56%] of 25, = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7%] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3%] of 24, = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.

A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic heater probe thermocoagulation and hemoclip are considered to be safe and very effective in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer. So far, there are only few reports concerning hemostasis with endoscopic hemoclip. The aims of this study were to compare the hemostatic effects of both therapeutic modalities in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were randomized to receive endoscopic hemoclip (n = 40) or heater probe thermocoagulation (n = 40).

RESULTS

Initial hemostasis was achieved in 34 patients (85%) in the hemoclip group and 40 patients (100%) in the heater probe group (p = 0.01277). Rebleeding occurred in three patients (8.8%) in the hemoclip group and two patients (5%) in the heater probe group (p > 0.1). Among patients with difficult-to-approach bleeding, we obtained a better hemostatic rate in the heater probe group (nine of 11 patients vs three of 10, p = 0.02417). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery, and the mortality rate were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, heater probe thermocoagulation offers an advantage in achieving hemostasis than hemoclip. In difficult-to-approach bleeders, heater probe is a more suitable therapeutic modality.

A prospective, randomized trial of large- versus small-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of epinephrine in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer is considered highly effective, safe, inexpensive, and easy to use. However, bleeding recurs in 6% to 36% of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal dose of epinephrine for endoscopic injection in the treatment of patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-six patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were randomized to receive small- (5-10 mL) or large-volume (13-20 mL) injections of a 1:10,000 solution of epinephrine.

RESULTS

The mean volume of epinephrine injected was 16.5 mL (95% CI [15.7, 17.3 mL]) in the large-volume group and 8.0 mL (95% CI [7.5, 8.4 mL]) in the small-volume group. Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients studied. The number of episodes of recurrent bleeding was smaller in the large-volume group (12/78, 15.4%) compared with the small-volume group (24/78, 30.8%, p = 0.037). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent surgery, and mortality rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of a large volume (>13 mL) of epinephrine can reduce the rate of recurrent bleeding in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer and is superior to injection of lesser volumes of epinephrine when used to achieve sustained hemostasis.

Review article: Helicobacter pylori infection in peptic ulcer haemorrhage

In this overview, medical advice for routine clinical practice regarding peptic ulcer haemorrhage (PUH) is given, based on the extensive literature about Helicobacter pylori and the controversial results about the interaction of H. pylori infection and nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. PUH remains an important emergency situation with an incidence between 32 and 51/100 000 persons per year. There is a high association between H. pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease. The association between H. pylori infection and PUH is less clear, but a strong argument for the aetiological role is the fact that eradication of H. pylori decreases recurrence of bleeding. NSAID use is another important risk factor for PUH. H. pylori infection and NSAID use seem to act independently, although some studies show a synergistic interaction while other studies report that H. pylori is protective against the development of PUH in NSAID users. All patients with PUH should be tested for H. pylori infection, regardless of the use of NSAIDs. Because invasive tests are less sensitive in PUH patients, negative tests in patients with no other risk factors should be confirmed by serology or urea breath test (UBT). Eradication therapy with a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate-based triple therapy should be given to all H. pylori-positive patients. Only for nonaspirin-NSAID users does the effect of eradication therapy on the healing of gastric ulcers remain controversial, but currently we also advise eradication of H. pylori in this subgroup. After eradication therapy, acid-suppressant therapy is advised to heal the ulcer. The success of eradication should always be confirmed because of the risk of recurrence of peptic ulcer disease and bleeding in H. pylori-infected patients.

Prediction of therapeutic failure after adrenaline injection plus heater probe treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Continued or recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding ulcer is a major adverse prognostic factor. Identification of such ulcers may allow for alternate treatments.

AIM

To determine factors predicting treatment failure with combined adrenaline injection and heater probe thermocoagulation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who received endoscopic therapy between January 1995 and March 1998 were studied. Data on clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and treatment outcomes were collected prospectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for treatment failure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3386 patients were admitted with bleeding peptic ulcers: 1144 (796 men, 348 women) with a mean age of 62.5 (SD 17.6) years required endoscopic treatment. There were 666 duodenal ulcers (58.2%), 425 gastric ulcers (37.2%), and 53 anastomotic ulcers (4.6%). Initial haemostasis was successful in 1128 patients (98.6%). Among them, 94 (8.2%) rebled in a median time of 48 hours (range 3-480). Overall failure rate was 9.6%. Mortality rate was 5% (57/1144). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that hypotension (odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-3.48), haemoglobin level less that 10 g/dl (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96), fresh blood in the stomach (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.40-3.31), ulcer with active bleeding (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.56), and large ulcers (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.15-2.83) were independent factors predicting rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger ulcers with severe bleeding at presentation predict failure of endoscopic therapy.

Proton pump inhibitors versus H2-antagonists: a meta-analysis of their efficacy in treating bleeding peptic ulcer

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether proton pump inhibitors are more effective than H2-antagonists (H2-A) for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed database until January 2000.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative randomized trials of proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole, lansoprazole, or pantoprazole) vs. H2-A (cimetidine, ranitidine or famotidine).

DATA EXTRACTION

Meta-analysis combining the odds ratios (OR) of the individual studies in a global OR (Peto method). OUTCOMES EVALUATED: Persistent or recurrent bleeding, need for surgery, or mortality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and contained data for at least one of the planned comparisons. Persistent or recurrent bleeding was reported in 6.7% (95% CI: 4.9-8.6%) of the patients treated with proton pump inhibitors, and in 13.4% (95% CI: 10.8-16%) of those treated with H2-A (OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.27-0.59) (chi2-homogeneity test, 18; P=0.09). Surgery was needed in 5.2% (95% CI: 3.4-6.9%) of the patients treated with proton pump inhibitors, and in 6.9% (95% CI: 4.9-8.9%) of the patients treated with H2-A (OR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.43-1.13). Respective percentages for mortality were 1.6% (95% CI: 0.9-2.9%) and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.3-3.7%) (OR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.31-1.57). SUB-ANALYSIS: Five studies evaluated the effect of both therapies given in bolus injections on persistent or recurrent bleeding rate, which was 6% (95% CI: 3.6-8.3%) and 8.1% (95% CI: 5.3-10.9%), respectively (OR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.31-1.05). Persistent or recurrent bleeding in high risk patients (Forrest Ia, Ib and IIa) occurred in 13.2% (95% CI: 7.9-8%) of the patients treated with proton pump inhibitors and in 34.5% (27-42%) of those treated with H2-A (OR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.16-0.48). In patients not having endoscopic therapy, persistent or recurrent bleeding was reported, respectively, in 4.3% (95% CI: 2.7-6.7%) and in 12% (95% CI: 8.7-15%) (OR 0.24; 95% CI: 0.13-0.43). Less marked differences were observed in patients having adjunct endoscopic therapy: 10.3% (95% CI: 6.7-13.8%) and 15.2% (11.1-19.3%) (OR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.97). Moreover, the significance disappeared in this group when a single outlier study was excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitors are more effective than H2-A in preventing persistent or recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer, although this advantage seems to be more evident in patients not having adjunct sclerosis therapy. This beneficial effect seems to be similar or even more marked in patients with Forrest Ia, Ib or IIa ulcers. However, proton pump inhibitors are not more effective than H2-A for reducing surgery or mortality rates. Nevertheless, the data are too scarce and heterogeneous to draw definitive conclusions, and further comparative trials are clearly warranted.

The role of acid suppressants in upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding

Re-bleeding and mortality remain significant in peptic ulcer haemorrhage despite the widespread use of endoscopic therapy. The acidic gastric environment interferes with coagulation. In vitro studies show that an intragastric pH of above 6 results in normal blood coagulation and platelet function. Because of induced tachyphylaxis, H(2)-receptor antagonists are not able to maintain a high pH. In addition, in randomized trials using H(2)-receptor antagonists, there was no reduction in re-bleeding and mortality. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are capable of maintaining a pH above 6. Four randomized trials, using high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors, significantly improved the outcome (in terms of a reduction in re-bleeding and surgery) in patients with peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Mortality was, however, not reduced. The additional effect of acid-suppressant agents after successful endoscopic therapy is limited to the reduction of re-bleeding and need for surgery, with no effect on mortality.

Surgery in the acute management of bleeding peptic ulcer

The management of bleeding peptic ulcers is an increasing challenge in an ageing population. Endoscopic therapy reduces the need for emergency surgery in bleeding peptic ulcers, and ulcers that fail endoscopic therapy are often 'difficult' ulcers, highly demanding for most gastric surgeons. Mortality in patients requiring eventual salvage surgery is high. Planned urgent surgery is preferable to emergency surgery in elderly patients. Initial endoscopic control offers an opportunity for selecting high-risk ulcers for early surgery. Such a logical approach has, however, not been supported by evidence in the literature. At surgery, an aggressive approach is recommended. Post-operative bleeding is more common after lesser surgery, and this complication is often fatal. When re-bleeding occurs, a selective approach is suggested as emergency surgery carries with it a substantial mortality. Large chronic ulcers with exigent bleeding are less likely to respond to endoscopic re-treatment. Expedient surgery is advised for these patients.

Clinical scoring systems for determining the prognosis of gastrointestinal bleeding

The prognosis of GI bleeding depends upon many factors. Patients should be evaluated carefully for risk factors. To avoid complications from GI bleeding, triage should be performed promptly after patient presentation. The history and physical examination should emphasize analysis of risk factors for severe GI bleeding and mortality. Factors that increase the morbidity and mortality include: age greater than 60 years; underlying comorbidity such as pulmonary diseases, liver diseases, renal diseases, encephalopathy, or cancer; physiologic stress from major surgery, trauma, or sepsis; coexisting disease in three organ systems; low hematocrit; melena or hematochezia; and prolonged prothrombin time. Hospitalized patients who require more than five units of packed erythrocytes transfusion or who develop hypotension or hypovolemic shock are more likely to need surgery. Patients with a high APACHE II score, the presence of esophageal varices, active bleeding, or other endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage are more likely to rebleed and undergo surgery. The proliferation of multivariable prognostic scales, as described herein, provides ample evidence that the goal of developing a single comprehensive multivariable scale to accurately assess severity of disease and to determine prognosis of GI bleeding is still not achieved. Yet significant progress has occurred in this field, leading to the hope of developing a universally applicable multivariable scale.

Current status of endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding

This article provides an overview of the therapeutic endoscopic modalities available for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. The benefits of endoscopic haemostasis have been fully demonstrated by three meta-analyses, which included most of the controlled trials published until 1992. In this review, an emphasis is placed on randomized, prospective comparative trials published during the past 20 years. Using an evidence-based medicine approach, the results of meta-analyses are translated into efficacy measures known as relative and absolute risk reductions, and number needed to treat. Single-modality treatments with injection agents such as epinephrine, sclerosants and thrombogenic substances, or with thermal therapies, are efficacious and comparable. Combination therapy involving injection and thermal techniques may offer an advantage over single-method therapy. The differences in the results between clinical trials and routine clinical practice, and among the various randomized studies, are probably related to operators' experience and variations in technique rather than to inconsistency of endoscopic haemostasis.

Review article: acid suppression in non-variceal acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Despite a decreased incidence of ulcer disease and improvements in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, mortality remains at about 6-7%. Although endoscopic haemostatic therapy has been demonstrated to be the mainstay of management, the search continues for less invasive medical modalities that might also improve patient outcome. In vitro data have indicated the important role of acid in impairing haemostasis and causing clot digestion. Therefore, theoretically, maintenance of a high intragastric pH (above 6.0) during management of upper GI bleeding is warranted. Until recently, available agents did not permit such a sustained elevation in gastric pH. Early studies with H2-receptor antagonists have not demonstrated significant improvements in important patient outcomes, such as rebleeding, surgery or mortality. With the availability of intravenous formulations of proton pump inhibitors, it is now possible to aim at maintaining gastric pH above 6.0 for 24 h per day. Recent clinical trial data would appear to support the use of proton pump inhibitors to decrease the rate of rebleeding and the need for surgery. This paper provides a review of non-variceal acute GI bleeding, with special reference to the role of proton pump inhibitors in this clinical setting.