Early Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stent Placement Is Effective for Massive Post-endoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding

Application of a New Hemostatic Clip to Prevent Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Delayed bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a serious adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prevent delayed bleeding of hemostatic clip (Sureclip) after ES.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with common bile duct stones with a high risk of delayed bleeding who received ES from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2022, were analyzed retrospectively. A 1:1 propensity score-matching analysis and logistic regression analysis were used. The patients were allocated into the hemostatic clip and control groups. The rate of delayed bleeding, hyperamylasemia, pancreatitis, and hemostatic clip closing the bile duct or pancreatic duct by mistake were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 161 and 232 patients were allocated to the control and hemostatic clip groups, respectively, propensity score matching created 120 matched pairs. The rate of delayed bleeding was significantly lower in the hemostatic clip group than in the control group (1.67% vs. 7.5%, P=0.031). After adjusting for confounding factors, logistic regression showed hemostatic clip was associated with decreased odds of delayed bleeding (0.134, 95% CI: 0.025-0.719). No case of hemostatic clip closing the bile duct or pancreatic duct by mistake occurred in the hemostatic clip group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative hyperamylasemia and pancreatitis between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the prophylactic application of a hemostatic clip is associated with a significantly reduced rate of delayed bleeding after ES in high-risk patients. This approach did not increase the risk of adverse event.

Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors and Anticoagulants in Gastroenterological and Visceral Surgical Procedures

BACKGROUND

The proper management of patients being treated with platelet aggregation inhibitors or anticoagulant drugs is a common clinical problem for both elective and emergency procedures in gastroenterology and visceral surgery. The essential matters that must be kept in mind in this situation are the hemorrhagic risk of the procedure, the indication for anticoagulation, and the pharmacology of anticoagulant drugs and platelet aggregation inhibitors.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed and on the guidelines of the relevant specialist societies.

RESULTS

Nearly all procedures in gastroenterology and visceral surgery can be performed under monotherapy with acetyl - salicylic acid. Other platelet aggregation inhibitors, such as clopidogrel or prasugrel, or anticoagulant drugs generally do not need to paused before diagnostic endoscopic procedures with a low risk of bleeding (<1.5%), but they must be paused before procedures in gastroenterology and visceral surgery where the risk of bleeding is high (≥ 1.5%). Bridging with heparin is reserved for patients with a very high risk of thromboembolism ( ≥ 5%).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of the current recommendations on the management of anticoagulants before gastroenterological and visceral surgical procedures gives the clinician a well-founded means of dealing with this complex and common clinical situation.

Practical Experiences of Unsuccessful Hemostasis with Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stent Placement for Post-Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Bleeding

We reviewed 7 patients with unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis using covered self-expandable metal stent (CSEMS) placement for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding. ES with a medium incision was performed in 6 and with a large incision in 1 patient. All but 1 of them (86%) showed delayed bleeding, warranting second endoscopic therapies followed by CSEMS placement 1–5 days after the initial ES. Subsequent CSEMS placement did not achieve complete hemostasis in any of the patients. Lateral-side incision lines (3 or 9 o’clock) had more frequent bleeding points (71%) than oral-side incision lines (11–12 o’clock; 29%). Additional endoscopic hemostatic procedures with hemostatic forceps, hypertonic saline epinephrine, or hemoclip achieved excellent hemostasis, resulting in complete hemostasis in all patients. These experiences provide an alert: CSEMS placement is not an ultimate treatment for post-ES bleeding, despite its effectiveness. The lateral-side of the incision line, as well as the oral-most side, should be carefully examined for bleeding points, even after the CSEMS placement.