Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

Antireflux valve metal stent versus conventional self-expandable metal stent in distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic biliary drainage using the conventional self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is the gold standard method for palliative treatment. However, there are limited data on the role of the antireflux valve metal stent (ARVMS). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ARVMS and SEMS in patients with distal MBO.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Ovid, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 2019 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The selected studies provided data regarding technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and stent dysfunction. Data were meta-analyzed using RevMan software.

Results:

Three RCTs were selected, enrolling 293 patients (147 ARVMS and 146 SEMS). The rates of technical success were 95.23% and 99.31% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-1.06; P=0.06). The clinical success rates were 91.57% and 89.36% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.48-3.51; P=0.61). There was no significant difference between the ARVMS and SEMS groups in terms of adverse events (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.35-1.05; P=0.07) or stent dysfunction (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.31-1.95; P=0.58), while the incidence of stent occlusion was significantly lower in the ARVMS group (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.76; P=0.003).

Conclusion:

Our study showed that ARVMS and SEMS had similar technical and clinical success rates. Adverse events were comparable between the 2 arms; however, ARVMS was associated with a lower risk of stent occlusion. Larger RCTs are required to verify the benefit of ARVMS in distal MBO patients.

The Morbidity and Mortality of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Patients with Cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

The perioperative mortality is significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis undergoing certain surgical procedures. In this study, we examined the inpatient perioperative mortality and morbidities in cirrhotic people who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample database for 2010. Inclusion criteria were all race and sex who are 18 years or older. Those who have laparoscopic appendectomy and have a history of liver cirrhosis were assigned to case group. An equal random number of appendectomy-related admissions and those who have no history of liver cirrhosis were selected and placed in the control group. A binary logistic regression statistical test was used to examine the odds ratio for the mortality difference and postoperative complication including pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding. IBM SPSS statistics was used to execute the analysis. A confidence interval of 95% and P value less than .05 were determined to define the statistical significance.

RESULT

A total of 754 appendectomy-related admissions were identified-376 appendectomy-related admissions and history of cirrhosis and 378 admissions with appendectomy and no history of cirrhosis. Control group was not found to be statistically different from the case group when it comes to age, race, and sex. Of 754, 520 were white (73.5%), 334 (44.3%) were men. The mean age was 43.75 years for the case group and 46.68 years for the control group. Comparing cirrhotic with noncirrhotic group, the mean length of stay was 1.1 vs 1.52 days, inpatient mortality was 2 (0.5%) vs 1 (0.3%) (P = .56), pneumonia 8 (2.1%) vs 3 (0.8%) (P = .142), surgical site infection 3 (0.8%) vs 2 (0.5%) (P = .652), UTI 18 (4.8%) vs 12 (3.2%) (P = .26), and postoperative bleeding 3 (0.8%) vs 2 (0.5%) (P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy-related morbidity and mortality in cirrhotic patients are not different from noncirrhotic patients.

Risks of PEG tube placement in patients with cirrhosis-associated ascites

This study examined the safety of placing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in people with liver cirrhosis. The target population was further subdivided into people with ascites (case group) and people without ascites (control). We compare the morbidity and the mortality difference of PEG placement in cirrhotic patients with ascites vs cirrhotic patients without ascites. We then examined multiple factors including sex, race, chronic illness including hypertension, congestive heart failure, and others and their influence on the inpatient mortality of all cirrhotic patients who had PEG placement. A total of 38,175 inpatient PEG tube placements were identified. Only 583 patients out of 38,175 had a history of cirrhosis. One hundred seven had ascites and the rest did not. Mean age of the patients was 61.14 years. Patient demography included (65.2%) male and the rest were female, 359 were white (64.4%), 90 black (14.8%), 84 Hispanic (13.7%), 23 Asians (3.3%), 7 Native Americans (0.4%), and 20 others (3.5%). Complications from PEG procedure in cirrhosis with ascites vs non-ascites included bleeding of 4 (0.8%) vs 2 (1.9%) (P=0.35), surgical site infection 2 (0.4%) vs 1 (0.9%) (P=0.51), and urinary tract infection 105 (22.1%) vs 34 (23.8%) (P=0.34), respectively. There was no colonic injury in either group. The total inpatient mortality was 75 out of the 583. Fifty-six (11.8%) were in the ascites group and 19 (17.8%) in the non-ascites group (P=0.097). Factors including ascites, postsurgical bleeding, and surgical site infection did not have influence on the inpatient mortality and there were no statistical differences between the two groups.