Effect of scheduled second therapeutic endoscopy on peptic ulcer rebleeding: a prospective randomised trial

Aim: Recurrent bleeding after initial haemostasis is an important factor that directly relates to the outcome in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding. Conflicting reports have been published concerning the effectiveness of scheduled second therapeutic endoscopy on ulcer rebleeding. We investigate the use of scheduled second endoscopy with appropriate therapy on peptic ulcer rebleeding. METHODS: From August 1999 to January 2001, we prospectively randomised patients who had endoscopically confirmed bleeding peptic ulcer with stigmata of acute bleeding, visible vessel, or adherent clot into two groups. Endoscopic therapy was standardised to initial epinephrine injection and subsequent heater probe application. The study group (n = 100) received scheduled second endoscopy 16-24 hours after initial haemostasis, and further therapy was applied if endoscopic stigmata persisted, as above. The control group (n = 94) were observed closely. Those patients that developed rebleeding in either group underwent operation if further endoscopic therapy failed. Outcome measures included ulcer rebleeding, transfusion, duration of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: After initial endoscopic haemostasis, 194 eligible patients were randomised into two groups. Thirteen patients in the control group developed recurrent bleeding within 30 days while five patients in the study group sustained recurrent bleeding (p = 0.0314) (relative risks 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.96). The number of patients that required surgery for recurrent bleeding was six in the control group and one in the study group (p = 0.05). There was no difference in duration of hospital stay, transfusion, or mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A scheduled repeat endoscopy with appropriate therapy 16-24 hours after initial endoscopic haemostasis reduces the number of cases of recurrent bleeding.     

Second look endoscopy in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Bleeding peptic ulcer remained an important cause of hospitalization worldwide. Primary endoscopic hemostasis achieved more than 90% of initial hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcer. Recurrent bleeding amounted to 15% after therapeutic endoscopy, and rebleeding is an important risk factor to peptic ulcer related mortality. Routine second look endoscopy was one of the strategies targeted at prevention of rebleeding. The objective of second look endoscopy was to treat persistent stigmata of recent hemorrhage before rebleeding. Three meta-analyses showed that performance of routine second look endoscopy significantly reduced ulcer rebleeding especially when the endoscopic therapy was performed with thermal coagulation. Two cost-effectiveness analyses, however, demonstrated that selective instead of routine second look endoscopy is the most cost-effective approach to prevent ulcer rebleeding. While international consensus and guidelines did not recommend routine performance of second look endoscopy for prevention of ulcer rebleeding, further research should focus on identification of patients with high risk of rebleeding and investigate the effect of selective second look endoscopy in prevention of rebleeding among these patients.     

Endoscopic hemostasis by using the TriClip for peptic ulcer hemorrhage: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the TriClip in the management of peptic ulcer hemorrhage in human beings are scarcely reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the TriClip endoscopic clipping device in the control of peptic ulcer hemorrhage. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation. SETTING: Regional government hospital. PATIENTS: From July 2004 to January 2005, patients older than 16 years and with Forrest type I and IIa peptic ulcer hemorrhages were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: TriClips were used for initial hemostasis. Salvage procedures, including adrenalin injection, heat probe application, argon plasma coagulation, or surgery will be carried out appropriately if TriClip failed to control bleeding alone. An endoscopy was repeated 24 hours later for the security of the TriClip and for any endoscopic evidence of recurrent bleeding. A follow-up endoscopy was performed 8 weeks later to assess ulcer healing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Procedure time, successful hemostatic rate, number of clips used, ulcer recurrent bleeding rate, complications, and ulcer healing rate were measured. LIMITATIONS: No comparative arm; pilot study only. RESULT: A total of 27 cases (11 women, 16 men) were included in the study, with a median age of 70 years (range 18-88 years). There were 19 cases of duodenal ulcer and 8 cases of gastric ulcer, with median size of 8 mm (range 2-20 mm). The rate of successful hemostasis in the first endoscopy by TriClips alone was 81.5% (22/27), with a median procedure time of 10 minutes (range 3-30 minutes). In the second endoscopy, the endoscopic recurrent bleeding rate was 14.8% (4/27) and the TriClips were found dislodged in 11 patients (40.7%). The permanent hemostasis rate was 67% (18/27). The overall failure rate was 33% (9/27). Three patients required blood transfusion before the first endoscopy. There was no morbidity or mortality observed in all cases. All ulcers healed after 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the TriClip is feasible in the initial control of peptic ulcer hemorrhage. However, we could not detect any obvious advantages in arresting bleeding vessels by using this new clipping device.     

Endoscopic findings and management of dengue patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

There are 100 million cases of dengue infection, 500,000 cases of dengue hemorrhagic fever, and 25,000 deaths annually due to dengue worldwide. Gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common type of severe hemorrhage in dengue fever. However, there are no reports about the clinical applications of endoscopic therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGI) in dengue patients. From June 17, 2002 to January 30, 2003, 1,156 patients with confirmed dengue virus infection were treated at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan. We analyzed those patients who had received endoscopic therapy for UGI. The characteristic endoscopic findings, therapeutic courses, and amount of blood component transfused were collected from their charts for statistical analysis. Among the 1,156 dengue patients, 97 (8.4%) had complications of UGI bleeding during hospitalization. The endoscopic findings included hemorrhagic (and/or erosive) gastritis in 67% of the patients, gastric ulcer in 57.7%, duodenal ulcer in 26.8%, and esophageal ulcer in 3.1%. Of the 73 patients with peptic ulcer, 42 (57.5%) met the endoscopic criteria (recent hemorrhage) for endoscopic hemostasis therapy. Peptic ulcer patients with recent hemorrhage required more transfusions with packed red blood cells (P = 0.002) and fresh frozen plasma (P = 0.05) than those without recent hemorrhage. Among these 42 patients with recent hemorrhage, endoscopic injection therapy was conducted in 15 patients (group A). The other 27 patients (group B) did not receive endoscopic therapy. After endoscopy, patients in group A required more transfusions with packed red blood cells (P = 0.03) and fresh frozen plasma (P = 0.014) than did patients in group B. There were no significant differences between groups A and B in duration of hospital stay and amounts of transfused platelet concentrate after endoscopy. Medical treatment with blood transfusion is the mainstay of management of UGI bleeding in dengue patients. Patients having peptic ulcer with recent hemorrhage require more transfusions with packed red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma for management of UGI bleeding than those without recent hemorrhage. However, when peptic ulcer with recent hemorrhage is encountered during the endoscopic procedure, endoscopic injection therapy is not an effective adjuvant treatment of hemostasis in dengue patients with UGI bleeding.     

Endoscopic Injection of Absolute Ethanol Achieves Ultimate Hemostasis in Bleeding Caused by Peptic Ulcers

Abstract: This study was performed to assess the efficacy of endoscopic injection therapy with absolute ethanol to prevent emergency surgery and recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcers. We compared two different treatment protocols of peptic ulcers with active bleeding or with visible vessels on the ulcer bed. In group I (1981–1984, control group), 45 patients underwent emergency endoscopy with spraying 0.1% epinephrine and thrombin, but no other endoscopic hemostatic procedure. In group II (1989–1992, experimental group), we performed endoscopic injection therapy with absolute ethanol for peptic ulcers in 46 patients. The background characteristics of the patients were not different in the two groups. The rate of successful initial hemostasis tended to be greater in the ethanol injection group compared with the control group without significance. The ultimate hemostatic rate in the ethanol injection group was markedly and significantly greater compared to the control group (P<0.05). Ultimate hemostasis by ethanol injection was performed effectively in peptic ulcers with spurting and oozing hemorrhage and in the non-bleeding peptic ulcers with visible vessels at the initial endoscopy (P<0.05 for each). These results indicate that ethanol injection therapy by endoscopy achieves ultimate hemostasis and prevents emergency surgery due to hemorrhage from peptic ulcers. (Dig Endoc 1994; 6 : 34–38)     

Recurrent bleeding from a duodenal diverticulum 8 years after endoscopic treatment: case report and review of the literature

A 70-year-old woman presented with a 2-day history of tarry stool. She had a history of hemorrhage from a duodenal diverticulum of the 2nd portion 8 years previously that had been managed successfully by endoscopic hemostasis. Initial gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed ulceration of the diverticulum with no active bleeding; nevertheless the ulceration was presumed to be the source of the tarry stool. Despite medical treatment, bleeding started again, but endoscopic ethanol injection achieved hemostasis. When bleeding started yet again 8 days after the endoscopic therapy, the patient underwent diverticulectomy. Although duodenal diverticula are frequently found in the adult gastrointestinal tract, they rarely show hemorrhage. Recently, there has been controversy about whether bleeding diverticula should be managed surgically or endoscopically. We describe for the first time a rare case of recurrent hemorrhage of a duodenal diverticulum after an 8-year interval; the case was treated by surgical diverticulectomy as a definitive therapy for the recurrent bleeding ulcer. We also present a review of the literature.     

Role of Doppler US in acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage: can it predict failure of endoscopic therapy?

BACKGROUND: Recurrent bleeding after successful primary endoscopic hemostasis of acutely bleeding ulcers is a significant problem.This study evaluates endoscopic Doppler ultrasound (US) in assessing risk of recurrent bleeding in patients presenting with acute peptic ulcer hemorrhage. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, nonrandomized trial, patients were enrolled from a single academic institution. Only patients with endoscopically confirmed gastric, duodenal, pyloric, or anastomotic ulcers were enrolled. The therapeutic endoscopist was blinded to the Doppler US signal from the ulcer and based treatment decisions on standard guidelines. A 16 MHz pulsed-wave, linear scanning, US probe was used through the accessory channel of an endoscope to assess for the presence of a Doppler signal. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 139 screened patients entered the trial (55 Doppler sessions). Endoscopic therapy was performed in 42% (30-day recurrent bleeding rate of 17%). Ulcers that remained persistently Doppler positive immediately after endoscopic therapy had a significantly higher rate of recurrent bleeding than ulcers where the Doppler signal was abolished: 100% versus 11% (p = 0.003). There were no bleeding-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: A persistently positive Doppler US signal appears to be a marker of inadequate endoscopic therapy in patients with acutely bleeding peptic ulcers.     

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease is common and results in substantial patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation to stabilize the patient, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis and identifies high-risk ulcer patients who are likely to rebleed with medical therapy alone and will benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage—active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot—combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coagulation (multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic treatment and should receive high-dose oral proton pump inhibitor therapy. Effective medical and endoscopic management of ulcer hemorrhage can significantly improve outcomes and decrease the cost of medical care by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and the need for surgery.     

Endoscopic treatment compared with medical therapy for the prevention of recurrent ulcer hemorrhage in patients with adherent clots

BACKGROUND: Two recent randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for combination endoscopic therapy in the management of bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of this technique in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients, seen from January 1992 through December 1999, with severe ulcer hemorrhage and non-bleeding adherent clots resistant to target irrigation were reviewed. The decision for combination endoscopic therapy (epinephrine injection, removal of adherent clot, treatment of underlying stigmata) or medical therapy was left to the discretion of the endoscopist. RESULTS: Of 244 patients with adherent clots, 138 (56.6%) had endoscopic therapy and 106 (43.4%) were managed with medical therapy alone. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for older age in the endoscopic therapy group. Recurrence of bleeding within 7 days of endoscopy was significantly less frequent in the endoscopic therapy group than the medical therapy group (respectively, 8.7% vs. 27.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.07 95% CI [0.02, 0.22], p<0.001). Median hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days; p<0.001), median number of red blood cell transfusions after endoscopy (2.0 vs. 3.0 units; p=0.01), the need for repeat endoscopy (9.4% vs. 26.4%; p<0.001), and recurrent bleeding within 30 days (10.1% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001) were significantly lower in the endoscopic therapy group. In addition, the need for ulcer surgery (5.8% vs. 9.4%; p=0.28) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 7.5%; p=0.18) were lower in the endoscopic therapy group, although these differences were not statistically significant. Endoscopic complications were uncommon (1.4% vs. 0.9%; p=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Combination endoscopic treatment of ulcers with an adherent clot was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent ulcer hemorrhage compared with medical therapy alone. These findings confirm that the efficacy of combination endoscopic therapy demonstrated in carefully designed, randomized, controlled clinical trials can be reproduced when this technique is applied in a clinical practice setting. However, combination therapy did not significantly reduce the need for ulcer surgery or 30-day mortality.     

Endoscopic hemostasis of a bleeding marginal ulcer: hemoclipping or dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic hemoclipping and dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation have been proven effective in the hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers. However, the hemostatic efficacy has not been investigated in bleeding marginal ulcers. The aim of this study is to investigate the hemostatic efficacy of endoscopic hemoclipping and dual therapy with epinephrine injection and heater probe thermocoagulation in bleeding marginal ulcers. METHODS: From November 1997 to July 2000, 50 patients with active marginal ulcer bleeding underwent either hemoclipping (20 patients) or dual therapy (30 patients) for hemostasis. The demographic data, clinicopathological characteristics, endoscopic findings, initial hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, amount of blood transfusion, the need of surgery, and mortality rates were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Marginal ulcers were located at the anastomotic site (64%), saddle portion (22%), efferent loop (10%), or at the afferent loop (4%). The bleeding stigmata were classified into spurting artery (32%), oozing vessel (38%), visible vessel (20%), and blood clot adhesion (10%). The overall therapeutic results in 50 patients were initial hemostasis (100%), rebleeding rate (22%), need for surgery (4%), and hospital mortality rate (4%). There was no significant difference in demographic data and clinicopathological characteristics between the two modes of treatments, whereas recurrent bleeding developed in 5% in the hemoclipping group and 33% in the dual therapy group. No complication related to the procedure occurred in either mode of therapy. The hospital mortality rates were 0 and 6.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Endoscopy is effective in achieving initial hemostasis from bleeding marginal ulcers. However, the rebleeding rate remains high and repeated endoscopy may be needed to arrest the hemorrhage.     

Predictors of hemostatic failure after adrenaline injection in patients with peptic ulcers with non-bleeding visible vessel

BACKGROUND: Non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV) in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer is associated with a high risk of rebleeding. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with failure of endoscopic hemostasis and rebleeding in patients with NBVV. METHODS: Clinical and endoscopic parameters related to failure of endoscopic hemostasis with adrenaline in 191 bleeding peptic ulcer patients with NBVV were evaluated. RESULTS: Endoscopic hemostasis was permanently successful in 154 patients (80.6%). Emergency surgical hemostasis for rebleeding was required in 37 patients (19.4%). Univariate analysis showed that therapeutic failure was significantly related to the presence of shock on admission (P=0.003), posterior duodenal ulcers (P=0.001), peptic ulcer history (P=0.001), previous peptic ulcer bleeding (P=0.002), or lack of history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs consumption, when compared to use of such drugs (P=0.04). Patients where therapy failed had lower hemoglobin levels at admission (7.8+/-1.9 g/dL versus 10+/-2.4 g/dL, P=0.005). In a multivariate analysis low hemoglobin (P<0.001) as well as history of previous peptic ulcer bleeding (P=0.002) and posterior duodenal ulcers (P=0.001) were negative predictors. Using the mean value of hemoglobin as the cut-off point, it is noteworthy that only 2 out of 81 patients (2.5%) who had none of these predictive factors required emergency surgical hemostasis, whereas 34 out of 110 patients (30.9%) with at least one predictive factor required emergency surgery. CONCLUSION: It is possible, by employing specific characteristics, to define a subgroup of high-risk patients for rebleeding in patients with NBVV despite therapeutic endoscopy and thus candidates for a complementary endoscopic method of hemostasis or emergency surgical intervention.     

The efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization as the first‐choice treatment after failure of endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopic treatment resistance factors

Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) as the first‐choice treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after the failure of endoscopic hemostasis. An additional objective was to clarify endoscopic treatment resistance factors. Methods: Between April 2004 and December 2010, 554 patients were admitted to Kasugai Municipal Hospital for necessary endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding gastric ulcer or duodenal ulcer. In the patients for whom endoscopic hemostasis failed, TAE was attempted. If TAE failed, the patients underwent surgery. The backgrounds of the patients in whom endoscopic treatment was successful and in whom it failed were compared. Results: TAE was attempted in 15 patients (2.7%). In 12 (80.0%) of 15 patients, embolization with coils was successful. In one patient (6.7%), embolization was ineffective. This patient underwent emergent salvage surgery. In two (13.3%) of 15 patients, no extravasation was observed during arteriography. These patients were cured with medication. In two patients, ulcer perforation was observed during endoscopy after rebleeding. These patients underwent surgery. In total, 3 (0.5%) of 554 patients underwent surgery. No recurrent bleeding was observed after TAE. Hemoglobin level <8 g/dL at presentation (P = 0.02), Rockall score ≥7 at presentation (P = 0.002), and Forrest class Ia/Ib at initial endoscopic hemostasis (P < 0.001) were found to be independent significant endoscopic treatment resistance factors. Conclusions: TAE is a safe and effective first‐choice treatment for patients in whom endoscopic hemostasis has failed.     

The role of endoscopic Doppler US in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND: Stigmata of recent hemorrhage are important prognostic signs for patients with ulcer bleeding, but these are subjective findings. This study evaluated the additional diagnostic value of Doppler US assessment in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed of patients with ulcer bleeding. Stigmata of recent hemorrhage were classified according to the Forrest classification, after which the ulcer was assessed by using an endoscopic Doppler US system. Patients with a Forrest Ib-IIb ulcer with a positive Doppler signal received endoscopic therapy. Patients with a Forrest IIc-III ulcer with a positive Doppler signal were allocated randomly to endoscopic therapy or no therapy. No ulcer without a Doppler signal was treated. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled. Of the Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers, 82% had a positive Doppler signal. Of the Forrest IIc-III ulcers, 53% had a positive Doppler signal. There was no difference in the rates of recurrent bleeding, surgery, or mortality between the group with Forrest Ib-IIb ulcers and between the Forrest IIc-III group with and without Doppler signal, but there was little power in the sample size to detect differences. Bleeding recurred in 3 patients without a Doppler signal. Recurrent bleeding was more frequent in the group in which a Doppler signal was still present immediately after endoscopic therapy (3/11 vs. 1/27; p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not substantiate a role for endoscopic Doppler US when this was added to the Forrest classification for making clinical decisions in patients with ulcer bleeding.     

Management of patients with ulcer bleeding

This guideline presents recommendations for the step-wise management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Hemodynamic status is first assessed, and resuscitation initiated as needed. Patients are risk-stratified based on features such as hemodynamic status, comorbidities, age, and laboratory tests. Pre-endoscopic erythromycin is considered to increase diagnostic yield at first endoscopy. Pre-endoscopic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may be considered to decrease the need for endoscopic therapy but does not improve clinical outcomes. Upper endoscopy is generally performed within 24h. The endoscopic features of ulcers direct further management. Patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels receive endoscopic therapy (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, sclerosant, clips) and those with an adherent clot may receive endoscopic therapy; these patients then receive intravenous PPI with a bolus followed by continuous infusion. Patients with flat spots or clean-based ulcers do not require endoscopic therapy or intensive PPI therapy. Recurrent bleeding after endoscopic therapy is treated with a second endoscopic treatment; if bleeding persists or recurs, treatment with surgery or interventional radiology is undertaken. Prevention of recurrent bleeding is based on the etiology of the bleeding ulcer. H. pylori is eradicated and after cure is documented anti-ulcer therapy is generally not given. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are stopped; if they must be resumed low-dose COX-2-selective NSAID plus PPI is used. Patients with established cardiovascular disease who require aspirin should start PPI and generally re-institute aspirin soon after bleeding ceases (within 7 days and ideally 1-3 days). Patients with idiopathic ulcers receive long-term anti-ulcer therapy.     

Endoscopic treatment of ulcer bleeding

Opinion statement Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding secondary to ulcer disease occurs commonly and results in significant patient morbidity and medical expense. After initial resuscitation, carefully performed endoscopy provides an accurate diagnosis of the source of the UGI hemorrhage and can reliably identify those high-risk subgroups that may benefit most from endoscopic hemostasis. Large-channel therapeutic endoscopes are recommended. Endoscopists should be very experienced in management of patients with UGI hemorrhage, including the use of various hemostatic devices. For patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage—active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessel, and adherent clot—combination therapy with epinephrine injection and either thermal coaptive coagulation (with multipolar or heater probe) or endoclips is recommended. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors are recommended as concomitant therapy with endoscopic hemostasis of major stigmata. Patients with minor stigmata or clean-based ulcers will not benefit from endoscopic therapy and should be triaged to less intensive care and be considered for early discharge. Effective endoscopic hemostasis of ulcer bleeding can significantly improve outcomes by reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and need for surgery, as well as reduce cost of medical care.     

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy： Endoscopic findings, clinical management and outcome

AIM: Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a severe complication in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy. The purpose of this study was to describe the causes and clinical outcome of these patients. METHODS: From January 1999 to October 2003, 111 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) were hospitalized while on oral anticoagulants. The causes and clinical outcome of these patients were compared with those of 604 patients hospitalized during 2000-2001 with AUGIB who were not taking warfarin. RESULTS: The most common cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer in 51 patients (45%) receiving anticoagulants compared to 359/604 (59.4%) patients not receiving warfarin (P<0.05). No identifiable source of bleeding could be found in 33 patients (29.7%) compared to 31/604 (5.1%) patients not receiving anticoagulants (P=0.0001). The majority of patients with concurrent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (26/35, 74.3%) had a peptic ulcer as a cause of bleeding while 32/76 (40.8%) patients not taking a great dose of NSAIDs had a negative upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopic hemostasis was applied and no complication was reported. Six patients (5.4%) were operated due to continuing or recurrent hemorrhage, compared to 23/604 (3.8%) patients not receiving anticoagulants. Four patients died, the overall mortality was 3.6% in patients with AUGIB due to anticoagulants, which was not different from that in patients not receiving anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with AUGIB while on long-term anticoagulant therapy had a clinical outcome, which is not different from that of patients not taking anticoagulants. Early endoscopy is important for the management of these patients and endoscopic hemostasis can be safely applied.     

Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND: Rebleeding occurs in 10% to 30% of bleeding ulcer patients receiving endoscopic epinephrine injection therapy. It remains unclear whether addition of a secondary clip therapy following epinephrine injection may reduce the rebleeding rate of high-risk bleeding ulcers. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of epinephrine injection alone and epinephrine injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A medical center in Taiwan. PATIENTS: One hundred five bleeding ulcer patients with active spurting, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots in ulcer bases. INTERVENTIONS: Endoscopic combination therapy (n = 52) or diluted epinephrine injection alone (n = 53). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Initial hemostasis rates and recurrent bleeding rates. RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was achieved in 51 patients treated with combination therapy and 49 patients with epinephrine injection therapy (98% vs 92%, P = .18). Bleeding recurred in 2 patients in the combination therapy group and 11 patients in the epinephrine injection group (3.8% vs 21%, P = .008). Among the patients with rebleeding, repeated combination therapy was more effective than repeated injection therapy in achieving permanent hemostasis (100% vs 33%, P = .02). No patient required an emergency operation in the combination therapy group. However, 5 patients in the epinephrine injection group underwent emergency surgery to arrest bleeding (0% vs 9%, P = .023). LIMITATIONS: Treatment outcome of endoscopic hemoclip therapy is related to the techniques of endoscopists. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic combination therapy is superior to epinephrine injection alone in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers.     

Impact of anticoagulation on rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage achieves hemostasis in greater than 90% of patients, but up to 20% rebleed. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of anticoagulation on rebleeding in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. METHODS: Patients who underwent successful endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2004, at a large, tertiary care teaching hospital were identified. The primary outcome was rebleeding within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were transfusion requirement, length of stay, surgery, and mortality. Baseline data were analyzed using t-tests and chi(2) tests. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were carried out to calculate the adjusted odds ratios for the international normalized ratio (INR) predicting the primary and secondary outcomes. The multivariable analyses controlled for: age, Charlson comorbidity index, antiplatelet agent use, postprocedure heparin use, postprocedure proton pump inhibitor use, hypotension, ulcer as the bleeding source, and active bleeding at endoscopy. RESULTS: The study included 233 patients. Forty-four percent of the patients had an INR >or=1.3. Ninety-five percent of the anticoagulated patients had an INR between 1.3 and 2.7. The rebleeding rate was 23% in the anticoagulated patients and 21% in the patients with INRs <1.3. On multivariable analyses, INR was not a predictor of rebleeding, transfusion requirement, surgery, length of stay, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mild to moderate anticoagulation does not increase the risk of rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, suggesting that endoscopic therapy is appropriate in these patients.     

Effect of Injection Sclerosis with Alcohol on the Rebleeding Rate of Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcers with Nonbleeding Visible Vessels: A Prospective, Controlled Trial

To assess the efficacy of injection therapy with alcohol on prevent rebleeding and emergency surgery in patients with gastroduodenal ulcers and nonbleeding visible vessels, we have performed a prospective controlled trial involving 39 patients who were classified into two groups according to the time of the day on which emergency endoscopy was performed: group 1 (25 patients) in which endoscopic hemostasis with absolute alcohol was performed, and group 2 (14 patients) in which conventional therapy was applied (blood transfusions, antacids, and ranitidine). The two groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, and type of bleeding. The rebleeding rate/emergency surgery rate of 8%/4%, respectively, for group 1 was lower than the 57%/50% for group 2 (p less than 0.001). Our results suggest that endoscopic hemostasis with alcohol should be considered as the initial treatment of choice in patients who present with major upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and are found to have an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel.     

Gastric and duodenal ulcer in the same patient

No extensive endoscopic studies have been performed on the prevalence and the clinical outcome of association of gastric ulcer (GU) and duodenal ulcer (DU). The present investigation, partially retrospective and partially prospective, takes into account 715 patients with active ulcer demonstrated by endoscopy, followed-up for a mean period of 3.8-years; 23 of them (3.2%) were found to have synchronous or asynchronous gastric and duodenal ulcers. The following characteristics were investigated: age of onset of both diseases, ulcer family history, cigarette and alcohol consumption, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs abuse, serum pepsinogen group I, ABO and Lewis blood groups, healing and relapse rate under H2-blocker treatment. The first diagnosis (by either X-Ray or endoscopy) was DU in 500 subjects (70%), GU in 210 (29.3%) and synchronous gastric and duodenal ulcers in 5 (0.7%). After a median period of 10 years, 2.8% of DU patients developed a GU; after 2-12 yrs 1.9% of GU patients developed a DU. The clinical and biochemical findings of our GU/DU patients suggest that the two ulcers are related by chance. In conclusion: asynchronous GU/DU patients do not seem to have a distinct disease in the large spectrum of ulcer disease. Larger studies must be planned on synchronous GU/DU with the aim of assessing whether or not it represents a particular type of ulcer disease.