Bleeding peptic ulcer--risk factors for rebleeding and sequential changes in endoscopic findings.

From September 1991 to December 1992, a prospective study was conducted to determine the risk factors and residual risk of rebleeding, and the evolutionary endoscopic changes in peptic ulcers that rebled. Emergency endoscopies were performed on 452 patients with haematemesis or a melaena, or both within 24 hours of admission. If the lesions were actively bleeding, then the patients were treated with injection sclerotherapy. A multivariate analysis of clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic variables of 204 patients with ulcer bleeding showed that hypovolaemic shock, a non-bleeding visible vessel, and an adherent clot on the ulcer base were independently significant in predicting rebleeding (p < 0.05). Considering these three factors according to the estimates of their regression coefficients showed that a non-bleeding visible vessel was the strongest predictor of rebleeding. The study of the residual risk of rebleeding after admission showed that most rebleeding episodes (94.1%), including all associated with hypovolaemic shock, surgical treatment, and death, occurred within 96 hours of admission. After this time, the residual risk of rebleeding was less than 1%. Study of the changes in endoscopic findings before and after rebleeding illustrated that all ulcers with a visible vessel or adherent clot showed at follow up endoscopy were derived from ulcers with initial major stigmata. It is concluded that hypovolaemic shock, a non-bleeding visible vessel, and an adherent clot on an ulcer base are of independent significance in predicting rebleeding. Observation for 96 hours is sufficient to detect most rebleeding episodes after an initial bleed from peptic ulcer.     

Comparison of oral omeprazole and endoscopic ethanol injection therapy for prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers with nonbleeding visible vessels or fresh adherent clots

OBJECTIVES: Omeprazole is a potent inhibitor of gastric acid secretion. Recently it was reported that p.o. omeprazole therapy reduced the rebleeding rate in patients with nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether p.o. administration of omeprazole can be an effective alternative to endoscopic injection therapy in peptic ulcers with stigmata of recent hemorrhage. METHODS: A total of 101 patients who had peptic ulcer bleeding based on endoscopic findings of nonbleeding visible vessels or fresh adherent clots were randomly assigned to receive omeprazole (40 mg p.o. every 12 h) or endoscopic ethanol injection therapy. RESULTS: Rebleeding rates were 22.9% (11 of 48) in the omeprazole group and 20.8% (11 of 53) in the endoscopic injection therapy group. The rebleeding rates of clinical significance were 14.6% and 13.2%, respectively. There was no significance difference in the rebleeding rate, requirement for surgery, total units of blood transfused, or mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral omeprazole administration is comparable to endoscopic ethanol injection therapy for prevention of rebleeding in patients with nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots.     

Non-Bleeding Visible Vessel Treatment: Perendoscopic Injection Therapy versus Omeprazole Infusion

Background: The non-bleeding visible vessel in a peptic ulcer is the highest risk factor for a bleeding recurrence among not actively bleeding lesions. Perendoscopic injection of sclerosing compounds is usually used as prophylaxis against rebleeding.

Methods: Forty-two patients with visible vessels in a peptic ulcer at an emergency endoscopic procedure have been studied: 21 patients underwent prophylactic perendoscopic hemostasis, and 21 patients were infused with omeprazole intravenously.

Results: Eight patients (19%), four in each group, had early rebleeding (within 48 h after the enrollment). There was no significant difference between the two types of treatment. At the endoscopic control after 48 h there were significantly more lesions with higher risk of rebleeding (Forrest IIa and IIb) in the group treated with perendoscopic hemostasis.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that omeprazole infusion is a valid alternative to injection treatment of non-bleeding visible vessels.     

Comparison of adrenaline injection and bipolar electrocoagulation for the arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcers with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel require aggressive endoscopic treatment. AIMS: To determine whether endoscopic adrenaline injection alone or contact probe therapy following injection is a suitable treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: A total of 96 patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels received adrenaline alone, bipolar electrocoagulation alone, or combined treatment (n=32 in each group). RESULTS: Initial haemostasis was not achieved in one patient in the adrenaline group, two in the gold probe group, and two in the injection gold probe group (p>0.1). Rebleeding episodes were fewer in the injection gold probe group (2/30, 6.7%) than in the gold probe group (9/30, 30%, p=0.04) and in the adrenaline group (11/31, 35.5%, p=0.01). Treatment failure (other therapy required) was rarer in the injection gold probe group (4/32, 12.5%) than in the adrenaline group (12/32, 37.5%, p=0.04). The volume of blood transfused after entry of the study was less in the injection gold probe group (mean 491 ml) than in the adrenaline group (1548 ml, p<0. 0001) and the gold probe group (1105 ml, p<0.01). Duration of hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent surgery, and death rate were not statistically different among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, combined adrenaline injection and gold probe treatment offers an advantage in preventing rebleeding and decreasing the need for blood transfusion.     

Relevance of the Rockall score in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer haemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the Rockall score to predict outcome in patients who undergo endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer haemorrhage. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Patients admitted to the three major acute hospitals in Lothian, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Details of 211 patients involved in two randomized trials of endoscopic therapy between 1995 and 1999 were accessed, and Rockall scores calculated. All patients had ulcers with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels requiring endoscopic therapy. The patients were followed up for 6 months and end points included rebleeding and death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comparison of mean Rockall scores for those patients who did not rebleed, those who re-bled and those who died. Identification of those patients at greatest risk of rebleeding or death after endoscopic therapy. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six patients did not rebleed, with mean score 6.17 (SD = 1.61). Rebleeding occurred in 35 patients whose mean score was 6.97 (SD = 1.52). There were 29 deaths with mean score 7.34 (SD = 1.40). The differences between the three groups were significant by one-way ANOVA (P < 0.001). Fifty-six patients had a Rockall score of 8 or over and, of these, 16 (29%) re-bled and 14 (25%) died. Of the 155 patients with scores of 7 or less, 19 (12%) re-bled and 15 (10%) died. The difference between these groups was significant with chi2 = 7.912 (P = 0.005) for rebleeding and chi2 = 8.147 (P = 0.004) for death. CONCLUSIONS: The Rockall score can be used to predict poor outcome in patients who undergo therapeutic endoscopy for major peptic ulcer bleeding.     

Regular-dose versus high-dose omeprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective randomized double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that profound acid inhibition along with endoscopic therapy might prevent rebleeding and reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. The aim of the study was to test the possible equivalence of a high dose and the regular dose of omeprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study involving 142 patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (Forrest classification I-II: spurting or oozing bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel, clot and black base). One-hundred-and-two (71.8%) patients received endoscopic treatment (adrenaline injection and/or heater probe) in pre-entry. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the regular dose of omeprazole intravenously (20 mg once a day for 3 days, i.e. 60 mg/72 h) or a high dose of omeprazole (80 mg bolus + 8 mg/h for 3 days, i.e. 652 mg/72 h). Rebleeding, surgery and death were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Six (8.2%) of the 73 patients receiving the regular dose of omeprazole and 8 (11.6%) of the 69 patients receiving the high dose of omeprazole rebled (P = 0.002 for equivalence, equivalence limit 0.15). Three (4.1%) of the former patients and 5 (7.2%) of the latter group underwent surgery. Four (5.5%) patients in the regular-dose and 2 (2.9%) in the high-dose group died within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Under the defined tolerance limits, the regular dose of omeprazole is as successful as a high dose in preventing peptic ulcer rebleeding.     

Regular-dose versus High-dose Omeprazole in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Study

Background: It has been suggested that profound acid inhibition along with endoscopic therapy might prevent rebleeding and reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. The aim of the study was to test the possible equivalence of a high dose and the regular dose of omeprazole in peptic ulcer bleeding. Methods: We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study involving 142 patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (Forrest classification I-II: spurting or oozing bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel, clot and black base). One-hundred-and-two (71.8%) patients received endoscopic treatment (adrenaline injection and/or heater probe) in pre-entry. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the regular dose of omeprazole intravenously (20 mg once a day for 3 days, i.e. 60 mg/72 h) or a high dose of omeprazole (80 mg bolus + 8 mg/h for 3 days, i.e. 652 mg/72 h). Rebleeding, surgery and death were the outcome measures. Results: Six (8.2%) of the 73 patients receiving the regular dose of omeprazole and 8 (11.6%) of the 69 patients receiving the high dose of omeprazole rebled ( P = 0.002 for equivalence, equivalence limit 0.15). Three (4.1%) of the former patients and 5 (7.2%) of the latter group underwent surgery. Four (5.5%) patients in the regular-dose and 2 (2.9%) in the high-dose group died within 30 days. Conclusion: Under the defined tolerance limits, the regular dose of omeprazole is as successful as a high dose in preventing peptic ulcer rebleeding.     

Double-blind randomized,comparative multicenter study of the effect of terlipressin in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal and/or hypertensive gastropathy bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS: 1) To compare the effect of 2-day application of 0.2 mg terlipressin i.v. every 4 hours (group I) with that of 5-day application of 1 mg i.v. every 4 hours (group II) in the treatment of bleeding esophageal varices and portal gastropathy. 2) To assess the incidence of adverse events. METHODOLOGY: Eighty-six patients with liver cirrhosis (54 men and 32 women, average age 51 years) were randomized over a period of 2 years into 2 groups. Acute bleeding was diagnosed endoscopically within 24 hours of its onset. The two groups fully comparable; treatment failure rated according to "Baveno II". RESULTS: Success rate in group I was 78% at day 2 and 75% at day 5; in group II 89% and 79%, respectively (no statistical significance). Rebleeding had occurred by day 5 in 15% in group I, and in 16.3% in group II. Transfusion needs by day 2 were significantly lower in group II (2.4 units compare to 3.4 units in I). The 30-day mortality was 17.1% in group I and 20% in group II. No statistical difference between I and II in the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: At a dosage of 1 mg i.v. every 4 hours, the success rate at day 2 was as much as 90% while blood consumption was significantly lower compared with the lower dosage. Rebleeding during first 48 hours occurred almost exclusively at lower dosage. There was no increase in the rate of adverse events relative to the higher dosage.     

Renal Dysfunction is an Independent Risk Factor for Rebleeding After Endoscopic Hemostasis in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

BackgroundDespite the progress in endoscopic hemostasis and pharmacological treatment, the mortality rate of peptic ulcer bleeding remains at 5–10%. Rebleeding after peptic ulcer bleeding is believed to be a risk factor for mortality. This study aimed to evaluate whether renal dysfunction is a predictor of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.Methods: In this retrospective study, consecutive patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who underwent endoscopic hemostasis at our Hospital from January 2010 to December 2018 were enrolled. The relationship between rebleeding within 30 days after endoscopic hemostasis and the patients’ admission and endoscopic characteristics were analyzed using univariate and multivariate regression models.ResultsOut of 274 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, 17 (6.2%) patients experienced rebleeding. In the analysis of the patients’ admission characteristics, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² was an independent risk factor for rebleeding (odds ratio 4.77, 95% confidence interval 1.168-18.211, p = 0.03). Patients with eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m² with or without hemodialysis had the highest rebleeding rate at 36.8%. With respect to endoscopic characteristics, the rate of rebleeding was associated with combination therapy (p < 0.0001) and active bleeding (p = 0.03).Conclusion: Renal dysfunction might be an independent risk factor for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.     

Continuous Infusion of Pantoprazole versus Ranitidine for Prevention of Ulcer Rebleeding: A U.S. Multicenter Randomized, Double-Blind Study CME

OBJECTIVES:  No North American randomized study has compared ulcer rebleeding rates after endoscopic hemostasis in high-risk patients treated with high-dose intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or IV histamine-2 receptor antagonists. Our hypothesis was that ulcer rebleeding with IV pantoprazole (PAN) would be lower than with IV ranitidine (RAN).
METHODS:  This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, U.S. study. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and major stigmata of hemorrhage had endoscopic hemostasis with thermal probes with or without epinephrine injection, then were randomly assigned to IV PAN 80 mg plus 8 mg/h or IV RAN 50 mg plus 6.25 mg/h for 72 h, and subsequently had an oral PPI (1/day). Patients with signs of rebleeding had repeat endoscopy. Rebleeding rates up to 30 days were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS:  The study was stopped early because of slow enrollment (total N = 149, PAN 72, RAN 77). Demographics, APACHE II scores, ulcer type/location, stigmata, and hemostasis used were similar. The 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.9% (5 of 72 patients) with PAN and 14.3% (11 of 77) for RAN ( p = 0.19). Rebleeds occurred within 72 h in 56% and between 4 and 7 days in 44% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 4%. Nonbleeding severe adverse events were more common in the RAN than in the PAN group (14 [18.1%] vs 7 [9.7%], p = 0.16).
CONCLUSIONS:  Because of the small sample size of this study, there was an arithmetic but not significant difference in ulcer rebleeding rates.     

What is the impact of capsule endoscopy in the long term period?

AIM: To assess the clinical impact of capsule endoscopy(CE) in the long-term follow-up period in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding(OGIB). METHODS: One hundred and forty-one patients who applied CE for OGIB between 2009 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed, and this cohort was then questioned prospectively. Demographic data of the patients were determined via the presence of comorbid diseases, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs anticoagulant-antiaggregant agents, previous diagnostic tests for bleeding episodes, CE findings, laboratory tests and outcomes.RESULTS: CE was performed on 141 patients becauseof OGIB. The capsule was retained in the upper gastrointestinal(GI) system in two of the patients, thus video monitoring was not achieved. There were 139 patients [62% male, median age: 72 years(range: 13-93 years) and a median follow-up duration: 32 mo(range: 6-82 mo)]. The overall diagnostic yield of CE was 84.9%. Rebleeding was determined in 40.3%(56/139) of the patients. The rebleeding rates of patients with positive and negative capsule results at the end of the follow-up were 46.6%(55/118) and 4.8%(1/21), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, usage of NSAIDs, anticoagulant-antiaggregant therapies(OR = 5.8; 95%CI: 1.86-18.27) and vascular ectasia(OR = 6.02; 95%CI: 2.568-14.146) in CE were detected as independent predictors of rebleeding. In the univariate analysis, advanced age, comorbidity, and overt bleeding were detected as predictors of rebleeding.CONCLUSION: CE is a reliable method in the diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding. Negative CE correlated with a significantly lower rebleeding risk in the long-term follow-up period.     

Epinephrine or epinephrine plus alcohol for injection of bleeding ulcers: a prospective randomized trial

Background: Rebleeding following epinephrine injection of bleeding peptic ulcers occurs in 10% to 20% of all cases. The addition of a sclerosant has the theoretical advantage of inducing vessel thrombosis and permanent hemostasis. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare injections with epinephrine alone or epinephrine plus absolute alcohol in patients with actively bleeding ulcers at endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy was performed 24 hours later; treatment was repeated in the presence of endoscopic signs of rebleeding. Surgery was performed when arterial bleeding could not be controlled endoscopically, clinical rebleeding with hematemesis or shock occurred, or the transfusion total exceeded 8 units. Results: One hundred sixty patients were enrolled (epinephrine alone, 81; epinephrine and absolute alcohol, 79). They were matched in age, sex, location of ulcers, hemoglobin on admission, shock, and severity of bleeding. Initial hemostasis was comparable: 79 of 81 with epinephrine alone (97.5%) versus 75 of 79 with epinephrine and absolute alcohol (94.9%). No difference was observed between the two with respect to either rebleeding (9 vs 6), need for emergency operation (12 vs 9), transfusion requirement (median, three units vs two units), hospital stay (median, 5 days vs 4 days), mortality (4 vs 7) and ulcer healing at 4 weeks (50 vs 46). Conclusions: The additional injection of absolute alcohol after endoscopic epinephrine injection confers no advantage. (Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:591-5.)     

Continuous infusion of pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of ulcer rebleeding: a U.S. multicenter randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVES: No North American randomized study has compared ulcer rebleeding rates after endoscopic hemostasis in high-risk patients treated with high-dose intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or IV histamine-2 receptor antagonists. Our hypothesis was that ulcer rebleeding with IV pantoprazole (PAN) would be lower than with IV ranitidine (RAN). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, U.S. study. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and major stigmata of hemorrhage had endoscopic hemostasis with thermal probes with or without epinephrine injection, then were randomly assigned to IV PAN 80 mg plus 8 mg/h or IV RAN 50 mg plus 6.25 mg/h for 72 h, and subsequently had an oral PPI (1/day). Patients with signs of rebleeding had repeat endoscopy. Rebleeding rates up to 30 days were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of slow enrollment (total N = 149, PAN 72, RAN 77). Demographics, APACHE II scores, ulcer type/location, stigmata, and hemostasis used were similar. The 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.9% (5 of 72 patients) with PAN and 14.3% (11 of 77) for RAN (p= 0.19). Rebleeds occurred within 72 h in 56% and between 4 and 7 days in 44% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 4%. Nonbleeding severe adverse events were more common in the RAN than in the PAN group (14 [18.1%]vs 7 [9.7%], p= 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small sample size of this study, there was an arithmetic but not significant difference in ulcer rebleeding rates.     

Pantoprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Following successful endoscopic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients. Rebleeding remains the most important determinant of poor prognosis. We investigated whether or not administration of pantoprazole infusion would improve the outcome in ulcer bleeding following successful endoscopic therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial, patients who had gastric or duodenal ulcers with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel received combined endoscopy therapy with injection of epinephrine and heater probe application. Patients who achieved hemostasis were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg intravenous bolus followed by an infusion at a rate of 8 mg per hour) or placebo for 72 h. The primary end-point was the rate of rebleeding. RESULTS: Rebleeding was lower in the pantoprazole group (8 of 102 patients, 7.8%) than in the placebo group (20 of 101 patients, 19.8%; P = 0.01). Patients in the pantoprazole group required significantly fewer transfusions (1 +/- 2.5 vs 2 +/- 3.3; P = 0.003) and days of hospitalization (5.6 +/- 5.3 vs 7.7 +/- 7.3; P = 0.0003). Rescue therapies were needed more frequently in the placebo group (7.8% vs 19.8%; P = 0.01). Three (2.9%) patients in the pantoprazole group and eight (7.9%) in the placebo group required surgery to control their bleeding (P = 0.12). Two patients in the pantoprazole group and four in the placebo group died (P = 0.45). CONCLUSION: In patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, the use of high dose pantoprazole infusion following successful endoscopic therapy is effective in reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements and hospital stay.     

A controlled study of therapeutic endoscopy for peptic ulcer with non-bleeding visible vessel

In a period of 14 months, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial was undertaken in 61 patients who had bled from peptic ulcers in which, at endoscopy, non-bleeding vessels were visible in the ulcer crater. The control group consisted of 31 patients in whom the procedure was limited to observation alone; in 30 patients the ulcer base was coagulated by means of a heat probe. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the rate of rebleeding, the assurance of ultimate hemostasis, the volume of blood transfusion required, the duration of hospitalization, or eventual mortality. However, the need for emergency surgical intervention was less frequent in the heat probe group (2 of 30) than among the controls (9 of 31) (p = 0.0243). Moreover, in the treatment group, those patients of advanced age (greater than 60 years), in shock, requiring blood transfusion of greater than 500 ml, and in whom blood or coffee ground material was seen in the stomach, thermocoagulation achieved statistically more effective hemostasis than that observed in the control group. For these high-risk subsets of patients with non-bleeding visible vessels, we recommend heat probe coagulation rather than mere observation.     

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.     

Predictive factors for colonic diverticular rebleeding: a retrospective analysis of the clinical and colonoscopic features of 111 patients

Background/Aims

Colonic diverticular bleeding can stop spontaneously or be stopped by endoscopic hemostasis. We analyzed the clinical and colonoscopic features of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding to establish the predictive factors for rebleeding.

Methods

A total of 111 patients (median age, 72 years) with colonic diverticular bleeding in Aso Iizuka Hospital between April 2007 and July 2010 were enrolled. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, medication, location of bleeding, colonoscopic findings and hemostatic methods were analyzed retrospectively from the hospital records.

Results

The most common sites of bleeding were the ascending (39.6%) and sigmoid (29.7%) colon. Overt rebleeding occurred in 30 patients (27.0%). Spontaneous hemostasis was seen in 81 patients (73.0%), and endoscopic hemostatic treatment was performed in 30 patients. The BMI in the patients with colonic diverticular rebleeding was significantly higher than in patients without rebleeding. Colonoscopic findings of actively bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels in the responsible diverticula were more frequent in the group with rebleeding.

Conclusions

A higher BMI and colonoscopic findings of actively bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels can be used as predictive factors for colonic diverticular rebleeding. Patients with such findings should be carefully followed up after hemostasis of the initial colonic diverticular bleeding.     

Treatment of peptic ulcer severe bleeding.

The success of a defined management policy op peptic ulcer haemorrhage which incorporates endoscopic therapeutic intervention depends on the early identification of a high risk group of patients and a high risk group of ulcers. The high risk group of patients consists of those likely to experience further bleeding on the basis of clinical prognostic indicators: shock and severe anaemia on admission and the pattern of bleeding; or tolerate rebleeding and emergency surgery poorly: patients over 60 years and those with associated disease. UGI endoscopy should be performed early (within 6-12 hours) in this group in order to identify the bleeding point and provide prognostic information regarding the risk of further haemorrhage. Peptic ulcers with major stigmata of recent bleeding (spurting or non-bleeding visible vessel) have high risk of rebleeding, the risk is even greater when major stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) are associated with shock on admission. Patients with such ulcers should be monitored intensively and receive endoscopic haemostatic treatment in order to terminate active haemorrhage or prevent rebleeding thereby avoiding the need for emergency surgery with its attendant morbidity and mortality. Patients with ulcers with minor or no SRH have a very low risk of rebleeding and don't require intensive monitoring or endoscopic treatment and can be discharged from hospital early. Ulcers which cannot be completely characterized have an intermediate risk of rebleeding and should be managed as high risk lesions. Secondary to the anatomy of the visible vessel any haemostatic endoscopic treatment should be applied around, but avoiding, the sentinel clot. Well-designed randomized controlled trials of endoscopic haemostatic treatment of peptic ulcer haemorrhage in which stratification of risk was based on the SRH, have demonstrated for non-bleeding vessel a significant reduction in rebleeding and in emergency surgery, for spurting bleeding benefit was found only for the rebleeding risk. No advantage was demonstrated in each group of patients in term of mortality. Such studies also demonstrate the superiority of the Nd:YAG laser over the Argon laser. Perforation is a rare complication of Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation (less than 1%). Precipitation or aggravation of arterial haemorrhage during treatment of a visible vessel, as a result of a direct hit, is a more frequent complication (0-29%). Further laser treatment is successful in terminating 75% of these induced bleeds, the remainder requiring surgery. Preinjection of the ulcer with adrenaline does not appear to prevent this complication.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Intravenous versus oral omeprazole on patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers: A prospective randomized clinical trial protocol

Background:Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compares the efficacy of oral omeprazole vs intravenous omeprazole in decrease of rebleeding of peptic ulcer patients.Method:The present study was authorized by the local research ethics committee of Jiangjin District Central Hospital (2020120987) and informed consent was obtained from all patients. All adult patients who were admitted to medical emergency rooms of Jiangjin District Central Hospital due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding (as evidenced by hematemesis, melena or hematochezia) were considered for inclusion in the study. Endoscopy was performed within 24 hours after admission. Patients older than 18 years with successful endoscopic therapy of high risk ulcers [defined as active bleeding (Forrest IA, IB), non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV, Forrest IIA) or adherent clots (Forrest IIB)] were enrolled. Patients with low risk ulcers (clean base, ulcers with a simple washable clot), suspicious malignant ulcer, bleeding tendency, uremia, liver cirrhosis, Mallory Weiss tear or already on PPI as an outpatient were excluded from study. All were managed endoscopically by injecting 5–30 ml of epinephrine (diluted 1:10000) around the ulcer crater. Cavitations or flattening of bleeding vessel and disappearance of NBVV was considered as established homeostasis. A biopsy was taken from antrum for evaluating Helicobacter pylori infection. Patient with unsuccessful endoscopic therapy were not enrolled and were referred to general surgeon. Information on demography, history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NSAID or ASA ingestion, ulcer location, bleeding stigmata and blood transfusion volume at entry were recorded in all patients. In the oral omeprazole group, the patients received 40 mg omeprazole orally twice daily for 72 hours. In intravenous omeprazole group, they received omeprazole 80 mg bolus and then 8 mg/hour infusion for 48–72 hours. Then, all patients received omeprazole 20 mg orally for 30 days. On the day of discharge Helicobacter pylori infected patients received standard regimens.Results:Figure 1 showed the primary and secondary end points.Discussion:Intravenous administration of PPIs has limitations. They are expensive, require a dedicated intravenous line, need nursing supervision and hospital admission. So, it would be reasonable to prescribe oral PPIs to patients with high risk bleeding ulcers provided that it is as effective as its intravenous counterpart. Oral PPIs have a high bioavailability. Its effect initiates one hour after ingestion and the maximal plasma concentration is achieved after 2–3 hours. However, there are few studies comparing oral and intravenous PPI in decreasing risk of rebleeding in peptic ulcer patients. More high quality randomized controlled trials are still necessary.Registration number:researchregistry 6588     

Outcome in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after capsule endoscopy

AIM: To investigate the clinical impact of capsule endoscopy (CE) after an obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) episode, focusing on diagnostic work-up, follow-up and predictive factors of rebleeding.METHODS: Patients who were referred to Hospital del Mar (Barcelona, Spain) between 2007 and 2009 for OGIB who underwent a CE were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, current treatment with non-steroid anti-inflammtory drugs or anticoagulant drugs, hemoglobin levels, transfusion requirements, previous diagnostic tests for the bleeding episode, as well as CE findings (significant or non-significant), work-up and patient outcomes were analyzed from electronic charts. Variables were compared by χ² analysis and Student t test. Risk factors of rebleeding were assessed by Log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression model.RESULTS: There were 105 patients [45.7% women, median age of 72 years old (interquartile range 56-79)] and a median follow-up of 326 d (interquartile range 123-641) included in this study. The overall diagnostic yield of CE was 58.1% (55.2% and 63.2%, for patients with occult OGIB and overt OGIB, respectively). In 73 patients (69.5%), OGIB was resolved. Multivariate analysis showed that hemoglobin levels lower than 8 g/dL at diagnosis [hazard ratios (HR) = 2.7, 95%CI: 1.9-6.3], patients aged 70 years and above (HR = 2.1, 95%CI: 1.2-6.1) and significant findings in CE (HR = 2.4, 95%CI: 1.1-5.8) were independent predictors of rebleeding.CONCLUSION: One third of the patients presented with rebleeding after CE; risk factors were hemoglobin levels < 8 g/dL, age ≥ 70 years or the presence of significant lesions.