Erythromycin prior to endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

Intravenous metoclopramide for increasing endoscopic mucosal visualization in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) is the most common emergency condition that requires rapid endoscopic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of pre-endoscopic intravenous metoclopramide on endoscopic mucosal visualization (EMV) in patients with acute UGIH. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of participants diagnosed with acute UGIH. All participants underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy within 24 h. Participants were assigned to either the metoclopramide or placebo group. Modified Avgerinos scores were evaluated during endoscopy. In total, 284 out of 300 patients completed the per-protocol procedure. The mean age was 62.8 ± 14.3 years, and 67.6% were men. Metoclopramide group achieved a higher total EMV and gastric body EMV score than the other group (7.34 ± 1.1 vs 6.94 ± 1.6; P = 0.017 and 1.80 ± 0.4 vs 1.64 ± 0.6; P = 0.006, respectively). Success in identifying lesions was not different between the groups (96.5% in metoclopramide and 93.6% in placebo group; P = 0.26). In the metoclopramide group, those with active variceal bleeding compared with the control group demonstrated substantial improvements in gastric EMV (1.83 ± 0.4 vs 1.28 ± 0.8, P = 0.004), antral EMV (1.96 ± 0.2 vs 1.56 ± 0.6, P = 0.003), and total EMV score (7.48 ± 1.1 vs 6.2 ± 2.3, P = 0.02). Pre-endoscopic intravenous metoclopramide improved the quality of EMV in variceal etiologies of UGIH, which was especially prominent in those who had signs of active bleeding based on nasogastric tube assessment.Trial Registration: Trial was registered in Clinical Trials: TCTR 20210708004 (08/07/2021).

Use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adult patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations.

METHODS

We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

Background

Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment.

Methods

The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached.

Conclusions

The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

Advances in the Therapy of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important medical emergency. Important recent advances are reviewed. These include further support for a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70-90 g/L. The Glasgow-Blatchford score remains the most useful assessment score for identifying the lowest risk patients suitable for outpatient management and predicting the need for intervention. Newer scores such as the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestive score (PNED) may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin improves outcomes and is underused. A new disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Over-the-scope clips and haemostatic powders appear to have some role as endoscopic salvage therapies. Non- H. pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers contribute to an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

Recent advances in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage due to peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important cause of emergency presentation and hospital admission. Despite advances in many aspects of management, peptic ulcer bleeding is still associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Comprehensive international guidelines have been published, but advances as well as controversies continue to evolve. Important recent advances include the evidence supporting a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70–90 g/l. Comparative studies have confirmed that the Glasgow–Blatchford score remains the most useful score for predicting the need for intervention as well as for identifying the lowest-risk patients suitable for outpatient management. New scores, including the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score, may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin appears to improve outcomes and is probably underused. High-dose oral proton pump inhibition (PPI) for 11 days after PPI infusion is advantageous in those with a Rockall score of 6 or more. Oral is as effective as parenteral iron at restoring haemoglobin levels after a peptic ulcer bleed and both are superior to placebo in this respect. Within endoscopic techniques, haemostatic powders and over-the-scope clips can be used when other methods have failed. A disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Non- Helicobacter pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ulcers contribute an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a poor prognosis and high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Pre-endoscopic erythromycin administration in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

In patients suffering from upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), adequate visualization is essential during endoscopy. Prior to endoscopy, erythromycin administration has been shown to enhance visualization in these patients; however, guidelines have not fully adopted this practice. Thus, we performed a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis on the issue of erythromycin administration in this patient population.

Methods

After searching multiple databases (November 2015), randomized controlled trials on adult subjects comparing administration of erythromycin before endoscopy in UGIB patients to no erythromycin or placebo were included. Pooled estimates of adequacy of gastric mucosa visualized, need for second endoscopy, duration of procedure, length of hospital stay, units of blood transfused, and need for emergent surgery using odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) were calculated. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.

Results

Eight studies (n=598) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Erythromycin administration showed statistically significant improvement in adequate gastric mucosa visualization (OR 4.14; 95% CI: 2.01-8.53, P<0.01) while reduced the need for a second-look endoscopy (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.34-0.77, P<0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD -1.75; 95% CI: -2.43 to -1.06, P<0.01). Duration of procedure (P=0.2), units of blood transfused (P=0.08), and need for emergent surgery (P=0.88) showed no significant differences.

Conclusion

Pre-endoscopic erythromycin administration in UGIB patients significantly improves gastric mucosa visualization while reducing length of hospital stay and the need for second-look endoscopy.

Role of Medical Therapy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Mortality from UGIB has remained 5-10% over the past decade. This article presents current evidence-based recommendations for the medical management of UGIB. Preendoscopic management includes initial resuscitation, risk stratification, appropriate use of blood products, and consideration of nasogastric tube insertion, erythromycin, and proton pump inhibitor therapy. The use of postendoscopic intravenous proton pump inhibitors is strongly recommended for certain patient populations. Postendoscopic management also includes the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori, appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors and iron replacement therapy.

Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Timing of Endoscopy and Ways to Improve Endoscopic Visualization

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the cornerstone of diagnosis and management of patients presenting with acute UGI bleeding. Once hemodynamically resuscitated, early endoscopy (performed within 24 hours of patient presentation) ensures accurate identification of the bleeding source, facilitates risk stratification based on endoscopic stigmata, and allows endotherapy to be delivered where indicated. Moreover, the preendoscopy use of a prokinetic agent (eg, i.v. erythromycin), especially in patients with a suspected high probability of having blood or clots in the stomach before undergoing endoscopy, may result in improved endoscopic visualization, a higher diagnostic yield, and less need for repeat endoscopy.

Non-anti-infective effects of antimicrobials and their clinical applications: a review

Antimicrobial agents are undoubtedly one of the key advances in the history of modern medicine and infectious diseases, improving the clinical outcomes of infection owing to their inhibitory effects on microbial growth. However, many antimicrobial agents also have biological activities stemming from their interactions with host receptors and effects on host inflammatory responses and other human or bacterial cellular biological pathways. These result in clinical uses of antimicrobial drugs that are distinct from their direct bacteriostatic or bactericidal properties. We reviewed the published literature regarding non-anti-infective therapeutic properties and proposed clinical applications of selected antimicrobials, specifically, macrolides, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and ketoconazole. The clinical applications reviewed were varied, and we focused on uses that were clinically relevant (in terms of importance and burden of disease) and where published evidence exists. Such uses include chronic inflammatory pulmonary and skin disorders, chronic periodontitis, gastrointestinal dysmotility, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer. Most of these potential therapeutic uses are not Food and Drug Administration approved. Clinicians need to weigh the use of antimicrobial agents for their non-anti-infective benefits, considering potential adverse effects and long-term effect on microbial resistance.

Endoscopic management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding

This review discusses the indications, technical aspects, and comparative effectiveness of the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding caused by peptic ulcer. Pre-endoscopic considerations, such as the use of prokinetics and timing of endoscopy, are reviewed. In addition, this article examines aspects of postendoscopic care such as the effectiveness, dosing, and duration of postendoscopic proton-pump inhibitors, Helicobacter pylori testing, and benefits of treatment in terms of preventing rebleeding; and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin and Xa inhibitors, following acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

Administration of erythromycin before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIM

Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has been hypothesized to aid in visualization and reduce the need for second-look endoscopy; however, the results have been controversial. To evaluate further, we performed a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in acute UGIB.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched (March 2013). Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. A meta-analysis for the effect of erythromycin or no erythromycin before endoscopy in UGIB were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of primary (visualization of gastric mucosa and need for second endoscopy) and secondary (units of blood transfused, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure) outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration).

RESULTS

Six studies (N = 558) met the inclusion criteria. Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in UGIB demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in visualization of the gastric mucosa [odds ratio (OR) 3.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.81 to 6.50, P < 0.01] compared with no erythromycin. In addition, erythromycin infusion before endoscopy resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the need for a second endoscopy (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.83, P = 0.01), units of blood transfused (WMD - 0.41; 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.01, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospital stay (WMD - 1.51; 95% CI: -2.45 to -0.56, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in patients with UGIB significantly improves visualization of gastric mucosa while decreasing the need for a second endoscopy, units of blood transfused, and duration of hospital stay.

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the improvements in the management of this condition in western countries, mortality rates have remained at 5-10% over the past decade. This article presents the main recommendations for the management of UGIB. Pre-endoscopic management (including use of scoring scales, nasogastric tube placement and blood pressure stabilization) is crucial for triage and optimal resuscitation of patients, and should include a multidisciplinary approach at an early stage. Unless the patient has specific comorbidities, transfusion should only be considered if their hemoglobin level is ≤70 g/l. Endoscopic therapy, the cornerstone of therapeutic management of high-risk lesions, should not be delayed for more than 24 h following admission. Several endoscopic techniques, mostly using clips or thermal methods, are available and new approaches are emerging. When endoscopy fails, surgery or arterial embolization should be considered. Although the efficacy of prokinetics and high-dose intravenous PPI prior to endoscopy is controversial, the use of an intravenous PPI following endoscopy is strongly recommended. Antiplatelet therapy should be suspended and resumed in 3-5 days. Finally, all patients should be tested for Helicobacter pylori by serology in the acute setting.