Epinephrine plus argon plasma or heater probe coagulation in ulcer bleeding

Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Its Endoscopic Management

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical symptoms that patients may present with include: hematemesis, coffee-ground emesis, melena, and hematochezia. Clinical signs can range from tachycardia to shock. The anatomical landmark that differentiates upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds from lower bleeds is the ligament of Treitz. The first steps of treating a patient who presents with signs of UGIB are resuscitation with appropriate fluids and blood products as necessary. The consideration of endoscopy and the urgency at which it should be performed is also vital during initial resuscitation. Endoscopic therapy should ideally be performed within 24 hours of presentation after initial stabilization with crystalloids and blood products. Intravenous proton pump inhibitors are the mainstay in the initial management of upper GI bleeding from a non-variceal etiology, and they should be administered in the acute setting to decrease the probability of high-risk stigmata seen during endoscopy. Pro-kinetic agents can be given 30 minutes to an hour before endoscopy and may aid in the diagnosis of UGIB. There are 3 broad categories of endoscopic management for UGIB: injection, thermal, and mechanical. Each endoscopic method can be used alone or in combination with others; however, the injection technique with epinephrine should always be used in conjunction with another method to increase the success of achieving hemostasis. In this review article, we will review the steps of triage and initial resuscitation in UGIB, causes of UGIB and their respective management, several endoscopic techniques and their effectiveness, and prognosis with a primary focus limited to non-variceal bleeding.

Impact of epinephrine volume on further bleeding due to high-risk peptic ulcer disease in the combination therapy era

BACKGROUND

In monotherapy studies for bleeding peptic ulcers, large volumes of epinephrine were associated with a reduction in rebleeding. However, the impact of epinephrine volume in patients treated with combination endoscopic therapy remains unclear.

AIM

To assess whether epinephrine volume was associated with bleeding outcomes in individuals who also received endoscopic thermal therapy and/or clipping.

METHODS

Data from 132 patients with Forrest class Ia, Ib, and IIa peptic ulcers were reviewed. The primary outcome was further bleeding at 7 d; secondary outcomes included further bleeding at 30 d, need for additional therapeutic interventions, post-endoscopy blood transfusions, and 30-day mortality. Logistic and linear regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There was no association between epinephrine volume and all primary and secondary outcomes in multivariable analyses. Increased odds for further bleeding at 7 d occurred in patients with elevated creatinine values (aOR 1.96, 95%CI 1.30-3.20; P < 0.01) or hypotension requiring vasopressors (aOR 6.34, 95%CI 1.87-25.52; P < 0.01). Both factors were also associated with all secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine maintains an important role in the management of bleeding ulcers, but large volumes up to a range of 10-20 mL are not associated with improved bleeding outcomes among individuals receiving combination endoscopic therapy. Further bleeding is primarily associated with patient factors that likely cannot be overcome by increased volumes of epinephrine. However, in carefully-selected cases where ulcer location or size pose therapeutic challenges or when additional modalities are unavailable, it is conceivable that increased volumes of epinephrine may still be beneficial.

Peri-Ulcerative Mucosal Inflammation Appearance is an Independent Risk Factor for 30-Day Rebleeding in Patients with Gastric Ulcer Bleeding: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify clinical endoscopic indicators related to peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation and to analyze whether the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for gastric ulcer rebleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that included patients with gastric ulcer bleeding who were hospitalized at three medical centers in China from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. Ulcer rebleeding that occurred within 30 days of successful initial hemostasis was analyzed to determine whether this event was related to the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance or other mucosal inflammation-related factors.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1111 patients and determined that GBS-Rebleeding-ROC (P<0.001), age (P=0.01), use of NSAIDs (P=0.001), bile reflux (P<0.001), and Helicobacter pylori (P<0.001) are all risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance. Through multivariate analysis, we determined that severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance (P=0.002) was an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding within 30 days. Finally, we developed a risk assessment model using factors associated with mucosal inflammation that may be useful for early prediction of rebleeding.

CONCLUSION

The risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance were identified. Severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding.

Emerging Trends and their Impacts on Peptic Ulcer Diseases: Treatments and Techniques

Background:

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is prevalent in almost all parts of the world. PUD complications are creating a major source of preventable health care expenses. The major factors responsible for the incidence of PUD and its complication have changed over the past few decades after the identification of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori bacterial infection along with a marked increase in the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) as drug therapy. The management of PUD has become more complex and challenging due to antimicrobial resistance.

Objective:

The objective of the study was to highlight current therapy and novel techniques used in the treatment of peptic ulcer diseases.

Methods:

An exhaustive literature search has been conducted across PubMed, Google, Scopus and Web of Science as an electronic database to add the crucial information from the relevant literature.

Results:

In the present review, we have discussed PUD and its pathophysiology. The recent trends in PUD and possible treatments with novel techniques have also been discussed. The type and presence of ulcers cannot be predicted accurately based on symptoms. The available treatment approaches for peptic ulcers based on their clinical presentation and etiology are anti-secretary therapy, endoscopy to reveal ulcers followed by drug therapy, and triple therapy for H pylori infection.

Conclusion:

Thus, the popular and effective methods are very beneficial in controlling PUD. The treatment based on diagnosis is the foremost requirement for ameliorating any disorder. In this article, the emerging techniques and development in the treatment and diagnosis of PUD have been reviewed.

Endoscopic application of mussel-inspired phenolic chitosan as a hemostatic agent for gastrointestinal bleeding: A preclinical study in a heparinized pig model

Marine mussels secrete adhesive proteins to attach to solid surfaces. These proteins contain phenolic and basic amino acids exhibiting wet adhesion properties. This study used a mussel-inspired hemostatic polymer, chitosan-catechol, to treat gastrointestinal bleeding caused by endoscopic mucosal resection in a heparinized porcine model. We aimed to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy and short-term safety of this wet adhesive chitosan-catechol. We used 15 heparinized pigs. Four iatrogenic bleeding ulcers classified as Forrest Ib were created in each pig using an endoscopic mucosal resection method. One ulcer in each pig was untreated as a negative control (no-treatment group). The other three ulcers were treated with gauze (gauze group), argon plasma coagulation (APC group), and chitosan-catechol hemostatic agent (CHI-C group) each. The pigs were sacrificed on Days 1, 5, and 10, and histological examination was performed (n = 5 per day). Rapid hemostasis observed at 2 min after bleeding was 93.3% (14/15) in the CHI-C group, 6.7% (1/15) in the no-treatment group, 13.3% (2/15) in the gauze group, and 86.7% (13/15) in the APC group. No re-bleeding was observed in the CHI-C group during the entire study period. However, a few re-bleeding cases were observed on Day 1 in the no-treatment, gauze, and APC groups and on Day 5 in the gauze and APC groups. On histological analysis, the CHI-C group showed the best tissue healing among the four test groups. Considering the results, chitosan-catechol is an effective hemostatic material with reduced re-bleeding and improved healing.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

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

Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: New Frontiers

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to blood loss from the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz due to lesions that are non-variceal in origin. The distinction of the bleeding source as non-variceal is important in numerous aspects, but none more so than endoscopic approaches for successful hemostasis. When a patient presents with acute overt blood loss, NVUGIB is a medical emergency, which requires immediate intervention. There have been major strides in pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for successful induction and remission of hemostasis in the last two decades. Despite achieving tangible improvements, the burden of the disease and the consequent mortality remain high. To address endoscopic outcomes better, several new technologies have emerged and have been subsequently incorporated to the armamentarium of hemostatic tools. This study aims to provide a succinct review on novel technologies for endoscopic hemostasis.

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding - review the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis methods

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a condition that requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate (exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy (within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.

Improvement of Short-Term Outcomes for High-Risk Bleeding Peptic Ulcers With Addition of Argon Plasma Coagulation Following Endoscopic Injection Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A second endoscopic method together with injection therapy is recommended to treat high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. This study investigated whether additional argon plasma coagulation (APC) treatment could influence hemostatic efficacy following endoscopic injection therapy to treat high-risk bleeding ulcers.From October 2010 to January 2012, eligible patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers were admitted to our hospital. They prospectively randomly underwent either APC therapy along with distilled water injection or distilled water injection alone. Episodes of rebleeding were retreated with endoscopic combination therapy. Patients in whom retreatment was ineffective underwent emergency surgery or transarterial embolization (TAE).A total of 116 enrolled patients were analyzed. The hemostatic efficacy in 58 patients treated with APC along with distilled water injection was compared with that in 58 patients treated with distilled water injection alone. The 2 treatment groups were similar with respect to all baseline characteristics. Initial hemostasis was accomplished in 56 patients treated with combined therapy, and 55 patients treated with distilled water injection therapy (97% vs 95%, P = 0.648). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients treated with combined therapy, and 9 patients treated with distilled water injection (3.6% vs 16%, P = 0.029). Treatment method was the only independent prognostic factor for recurrent bleeding (odds ratio 0.17; 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.84; P = 0.029). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in hospital stay, TAE, surgery, and mortality.Endoscopic therapy with APC following distilled water injection is more effective than distilled water injection alone for preventing rebleeding of peptic ulcer.

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.

Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease

The management of patients with non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has evolved, as have its causes and prognosis, over the past 20 years. The addition of high-quality data coupled to the publication of authoritative national and international guidelines have helped define current-day standards of care. This review highlights the relevant clinical evidence and consensus recommendations that will hopefully result in promoting the effective dissemination and knowledge translation of important information in the management of patients afflicted with this common entity.