Hemospray for treatment of acute bleeding due to upper gastrointestinal tumours

BackgroundHemospray is a new endoscopic haemostatic powder that can be used in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleedings.AimsTo assess the efficacy and safety of Hemospray as monotherapy for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to cancer.MethodsThe endoscopy databases of 3 Italian Endoscopic Units were reviewed retrospectively and 15 patients (8 males; mean age 74 years) were included in this study.ResultsImmediate haemostasis was achieved in 93% of cases. Among the successful cases, 3 re-bled, one case treated with Hemospray and injection had a good outcome, while 2 cases died both re-treated with Hemospray, injection and thermal therapy. No complications related to Hemospray occurred. Finally, 80% of patients had a good clinical outcome at 30 days and 50% at six months.ConclusionHemospray may be considered an effective and safe method for the endoscopic management of acute neoplastic upper gastrointestinal bleedings.     

New haemostatic techniques: histoacryl injection, banding/endoloop ligation and haemoclipping.

New endoscopic modalities for the haemostasis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding include cyanoacrylate tissue glue injection for oesophageal and gastric varices, ligation using bands and loops for variceal and non-variceal bleeding, and clips for non-variceal bleeding. These new modalities aim to improve primary and secondary haemostasis rates and the safety of endoscopic treatment. Preliminary experience using these modalities has been encouraging, but prospective randomized trials using adequate patient numbers are still needed to validate their efficacy and safety. The choice of treatment will depend on the clinical context and the anatomy of the bleeding lesion. Cyanoacrylate injection, which achieves rapid haemostasis and obliteration of the treated varix, is ideally suited to acute variceal bleeding and the obliteration of large gastric varices. Bands and loops are used in conjunction with a transparent cap attachment for the elective treatment of oesophageal varices. The clip is most effective when a vessel from a non-variceal bleeding source can be identified.     

Adrenaline plus cyanoacrylate injection for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers after failure of conventional endoscopic haemostasis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy is a safe and effective method for treating non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However failure of therapy, in terms of continuing bleeding or rebleeding, is seen in up to 20%. Cyanoacrylate is a tissue glue used for variceal bleeding that has occasionally been reported as an alternative haemostatic technique in non-variceal haemorrhage. AIM: To retrospectively describe personal experience using cyanoacrylate injection in the management of bleeding ulcers after failure of first-line endoscopic modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and March 1998, 18 [12 M/6 F, mean age 68.1 years) out of 176 patients, referred to our Unit for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, were treated with intralesional injection of adrenaline plus undiluted cyanoacrylate. Persistent bleeding after endoscopic haemostasis or early rebleeding were the indications for cyanoacrylate treatment. RESULTS: Definitive haemostasis was achieved in 17 out of 18 patients treated with cyanoacrylate. One patient needed surgery. No early or late rebleeding occurred during the follow-up. No complications or instrument lesions related to cyanoacrylate were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective series, cyanoacrylate plus adrenaline injection was found to be a potentially safe and effective alternative to endoscopic haemostasis when conventional treatment modalities fail in controlling bleeding from gastroduodenal ulcers.     

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients in Nile Delta

Background and Study Aims

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) in cirrhotic patients occurs mainly from esophageal and gastric varices; however, quite a large number of cirrhotic patients bleed from other sources as well. The aim of the present work is to determine the prevalence of non-variceal UGIB as well as its different causes among the cirrhotic portal hypertensive patients in Nile Delta.

Methods

Emergency upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy for AUGIB was done in 650 patients. Out of these patients, 550 (84.6 %) patients who were proved to have cirrhosis were the subject of the present study.

Results

From all cirrhotic portal hypertensive patients, 415 (75.5 %) bled from variceal sources (esophageal and gastric) while 135 (24.5 %) of them bled from non-variceal sources. Among variceal sources of bleeding, esophageal varices were much more common than gastric varices. Peptic ulcer was the most common non-variceal source of bleeding.

Conclusions

Non-variceal bleeding in cirrhosis was not frequent, and sources included peptic ulcer, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and erosive disease of the stomach and duodenum.

     

Risk factors for rebleeding after angiographically negative acute gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM： To identify possible predictive factors for rebleeding after angiographically negative findings in patients with acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding.
METHODS： From January 2000 to July 2007, 128 patients with acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding had negative findings after initial angiography. Clinical and laboratory parameters were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS： Among 128 patients, 62 had no recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding and 66 had recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding within 30 d. As determined by the use of multivariate analysis, an underlying malignancy, liver cirrhosis and hematemesis were significant factors related to recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding.
CONCLUSION： Clinical factors including underlying malignancy, liver cirrhosis, and hematemesis are important predictors for rebleeding after angiographically negative findings in patients with acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding.     

Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Review

Background

Non-variceal gastrointestinal (NVGI) bleeding in cirrhosis may be associated with life-threatening complications similar to variceal bleeding.

Aim

To review NVGI bleeding in cirrhosis.

Methods

MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched, using the textwords “portal hypertensive gastropathy,” “gastric vascular ectasia,” “peptic ulcer,” “Dieulafoy’s,” “Mallory–Weiss syndrome,” “portal hypertensive enteropathy,” “portal hypertensive colopathy,” “hemorrhoids,” and “cirrhosis.”

Results

Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) and gastric vascular ectasia (GVE) are gastric lesions that most commonly present as chronic anemia; acute upper GI (UGI) bleeding is a rare manifestation. Management of PHG-related bleeding is mainly pharmacological, whereas endoscopic intervention is favored in GVE-related bleeding. Shunt therapies or more invasive techniques are restricted in refractory cases. Despite its high incidence in cirrhotic patients, peptic ulcer accounts for a relatively small proportion of UGI bleeding in this patient population. However, in contrary to general population, the pathogenetic role of Helicobacter pylori infection remains questionable. Finally, other causes of UGI bleeding include Dieulafoy’s lesion, Mallory–Weiss syndrome, and portal hypertensive enteropathy. The most common non-variceal endoscopic findings reported in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding are portal hypertensive colopathy and hemorrhoids. However, the vast majority of studies are case reports and, therefore, the incidence, diagnosis, and risk of bleeding remain undefined. Endoscopic interventions, shunting procedures, and surgical techniques have been described in this setting.

Conclusions

The data on NVGI bleeding in liver cirrhosis are surprisingly scanty. Large, multicenter epidemiological studies are needed to better assess prevalence and incidence and, most importantly, randomized studies should be performed to evaluate the success rates of therapeutic algorithms.     

内镜下尼龙圈套扎治疗急性非静脉曲张消化道出血

目的探讨内镜下尼龙圈套扎治疗（ENLL）在急性非静脉曲张消化道出血治疗的可行性和有效性。方法选择24h内有活动性非静脉曲张消化道出血患者56例，对出血病灶进行内镜下尼龙圈套扎治疗。结果56例患者巾24例为活动性出血，其中23例即时止血成功（95．9％）。无严重并发症发生。结论ENLL是一种治疗急性非静脉曲张出血的有效方法。     

Hemospray治疗上消化道出血六例临床观察

目的评价Hemospray治疗上消化道出血的疗效和安全性。方法将2018年8—11月首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院消化内科采用Hemospray止血的6例病例纳入回顾性分析,总结即刻止血率、术后7 d再出血率及治疗相关不良反应发生情况。结果6例上消化道出血患者因常规内镜止血无效采用Hemospray止血,均实现即刻止血,术后7 d有1例患者发生再出血,无一例出现治疗相关不良反应。结论本研究初步证实Hemospray治疗常规止血疗效欠佳的上消化道出血安全有效,可作为内镜下止血治疗的一种新选择。     

内镜下钛夹治疗非静脉曲张性消化道出血47例

目的:观察内镜下金属钛夹治疗非静脉曲张性消化道出血的疗效.方法:收集我院2003-12/2006-07非静脉曲张性消化道出血患者47例,在内镜直视下明确出血部位,使用钛夹推送器对准出血部位两端,钳夹止血.结果:非静脉曲张性消化道出血患者47例经钛夹钳夹治疗后,均一次性止血成功,即时止血率100%,术后无明显并发症,随访3mo无1例再发出血.结论:金属钛夹是非静脉曲张性消化道出血的一种有效的止血方法,具有操作简单、止血效率高及无明显并发症等优点,值得临床推广应用.     

Improving the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. The most common source of bleeding is from gastroesophageal varices but non-variceal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease also carries a significant risk in patients with liver disease. The prognosis is related to the severity of the underlying liver disease, and deaths often occur due to liver failure, infection or renal failure. Optimal management should therefore not only achieve haemostasis but address these complications as well. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis includes a range of medical, endoscopic and radiological interventions. This article updates the recent developments in this area and highlights topics where further research is still required.     

非静脉曲张性急性上消化道出血血清胃泌素检测及其临床意义

目的:了解非静脉曲张性急性上消化道出血血清胃泌素变化及其临床意义。方法:A组:急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血34例;B组:活动期消化性溃疡29例;C组:慢性胃炎30例。采用放免法检测血清胃泌素。结果:A组血清胄泌素为97.94±22.75ng/L,95％可信限(95％CI)为92.08～103.80ng/L;B组胃泌素52.31±9.94ng/L,95％CI 48.70～55.94ng/L;C组胃泌素35.15±11.95ng/L,95％ CI 30.88～39.42ng/L。A组胃泌素显著高于B、C组(P<0.01),B组胃泌素也明显高于C组(P<0.05)。结论:胃泌素增多与消化道出血相关。     

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE): an update on clinical presentation, pathophysiology and treatment

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE), though a rare disorder, causes up to 4% of non-variceal upper GI bleeding. This paper gives an overview of studies examining clinical presentation and pathophysiology, and reviews the current evidence for invasive and non-invasive treatments. GAVE is often associated with systemic illnesses, such as cirrhosis of the liver, autoimmune connective tissue disorders, bone marrow transplantation and chronic renal failure. The pathophysiological changes leading to GAVE have not been fully explained and remain controversial. Patient presentation varies from chronic iron-deficiency anaemia to heavy acute gastrointestinal bleeding. It is important to differentiate GAVE from portal hypertensive gastropathy as GAVE does not respond to measures reducing portal pressures. Endoscopic ablation (Nd:YAG-laser or argon plasma coagulation) is the first-line treatment of choice. As evidence for pharmacological therapy with oestrogen (and/or progesterone), tranexamic acid or thalidomide stems from case reports only, these should be used if endoscopic measures have failed to stop chronic blood loss. Surgical antrectomy should be reserved for unresponsive cases as it is associated with a high mortality. Ultimately, treatment of the underlying medical co-morbidities may lead to resolution of GAVE.     

High rate of re-bleeding after application of Hemospray for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeds

Background & aimsHemospray (TC-325, Cook Medical) has recently been approved for use in GI bleeding. Specific clinical indications and predictors of success or failure have not been well delineated.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of Hemospray use at a tertiary center. We assessed demographics and characteristics of Hemospray use. We analyzed outcomes of hemostasis, rebleeding, need for embolization or surgery, and death.Results86 applications of Hemospray were identified. The most common etiology of upper GI bleeds were ulcers (67.1%) whilst the etiology of lower GI bleeds varied. Hemospray was applied as monotherapy in 28 procedures (32.6%). Immediate hemostasis rate was 88.4%, but there was a high rate of re-bleeding (33.7%). Most re-bleeds occurred within 7 days (86.2%). Syncope was an independent predictive factor re-bleeding at 7 days for EGD (OR = 12.16, 95% CI = 1.51–97.75, P = 0.019). Bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment with hemospray required radiological embolization in 9 instances, and surgery in 9 instances. Hemospray therapy was protective against need for embolization (p < 0.05). 2 patients underwent liver transplantation and there was a total of 5 deaths. Hepatic disease was an independent predictor of death (OR = 47.15, 95% CI = 2.42–916.89, P = 0.011).ConclusionHemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding. Syncope is a predictor of rebleeding, and hepatic disease is a predictor of death in patients undergoing Hemospray therapy. Despite high rates of embolization and surgery, Hemospray may reduce need for embolization. Hemospray use during endoscopy should prompt physicians to consider early re-look endoscopy and more aggressive therapy.     

Distinctive aspects of peptic ulcer disease,Dieulafoy's lesion,and Mallory-Weiss syndrome in patients with advanced alcoholic liver disease or cirrhosis

AIM: To systematically review the data on distinctive aspects of peptic ulcer disease (PUD), Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL), and Mallory-Weiss syndrome (MWS) in patients with advanced alcoholic liver disease (aALD), including alcoholic hepatitis or alcoholic cirrhosis. METHODS: Computerized literature search performed via PubMed using the following medical subject heading terms and keywords: “alcoholic liver disease”, “alcoholic hepatitis”,“ alcoholic cirrhosis”, “cirrhosis”, “liver disease”, “upper gastrointestinal bleeding”, “non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding”, “PUD”, ‘‘DL’’, ‘‘Mallory-Weiss tear”, and “MWS’’. RESULTS: While the majority of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with aALD is related to portal hypertension, about 30%-40% of acute GI bleeding in patients with aALD is unrelated to portal hypertension. Such bleeding constitutes an important complication of aALD because of its frequency, severity, and associated mortality. Patients with cirrhosis have a markedly increased risk of PUD, which further increases with the progression of cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis or aALD and peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) have worse clinical outcomes than other patients with PUB, including uncontrolled bleeding, rebleeding, and mortality. Alcohol consumption, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and portal hypertension may have a pathogenic role in the development of PUD in patients with aALD. Limited data suggest that Helicobacter pylori does not play a significant role in the pathogenesis of PUD in most cirrhotic patients. The frequency of bleeding from DL appears to be increased in patients with aALD. DL may be associated with an especially high mortality in these patients. MWS is strongly associated with heavy alcohol consumption from binge drinking or chronic alcoholism, and is associated with aALD. Patients with aALD have more severe MWS bleeding and are more likely to rebleed when compared to non-cirrhotics. Pre-endoscopic management of acute GI bleeding in patients with aALD unrelated to portal hypertension is similar to the management of aALD patients with GI bleeding from portal hypertension, because clinical distinction before endoscopy is difficult. Most patients require intensive care unit admission and attention to avoid over-transfusion, to correct electrolyte abnormalities and coagulopathies, and to administer antibiotic prophylaxis. Alcoholics should receive thiamine and be closely monitored for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Prompt endoscopy, after initial resuscitation, is essential to diagnose and appropriately treat these patients. Generally, the same endoscopic hemostatic techniques are used in patients bleeding from PUD, DL, or MWS in patients with aALD as in the general population. CONCLUSION: Nonvariceal upper GI bleeding in patients with aALD has clinically important differences from that in the general population without aALD, including: more frequent and more severe bleeding from PUD, DL, or MWS.     

Safety and efficacy of Hemospray? in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND:

Hemospray (Cook Medical, USA) has recently been approved in Canada for the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestional bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVE:

To review the authors’ experience with the safety and efficacy of Hemospray for treating UGIB.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who required endoscopic evaluation for suspected UGIB and were treated with Hemospray.

RESULTS:

From February 2012 to July 2013, 19 patients (mean age 67.6 years) with UGIB were treated with Hemospray. A bleeding lesion was identified in the esophagus in one (5.3%) patient, the stomach in five (26.3%) and duodenum in 13 (68.4%). Bleeding was secondary to peptic ulcers in 12 (63.2%) patients, Dieulafoy lesions in two (10.5%), mucosal erosion in one (5.3%), angiodysplastic lesions in one (5.3%), ampullectomy in one (5.3%), polypectomy in one (5.3%) and an unidentified lesion in one (5.3%). The lesions showed spurting hemorrhage in four (21.1%) patients, oozing hemorrhage in 11 (57.9%) and no active bleeding in four (21.1%). Hemospray was administered as monotherapy in two (10.5%) patients, first-line modality in one (5.3%) and rescue modality in 16 (84.2%). Hemospray was applied prophylactically to nonbleeding lesions in four (21.1%) patients and therapeutically to bleeding lesions in 15 (78.9%). Acute hemostasis was achieved in 14 of 15 (93.3%) patients. Rebleeding within seven days occurred in seven of 18 (38.9%) patients. Potential adverse events occurred in two (10.5%) patients and included visceral perforation and splenic infarct. Mortality occurred in five (26.3%) patients but the cause of death was unrelated to gastrointestinal bleeding with the exception of one patient who developed hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSIONS:

The high rates of both acute hemostasis and recurrent bleeding suggest that Hemospray may be used in high-risk cases as a temporary measure or a bridge toward more definitive therapy.     

奥曲肽联合质子泵抑制剂治疗非静脉曲张上消化道出血的Meta分析

目的系统评价奥曲肽联合质子泵抑制剂治疗非静脉曲张上消化道出血的有效性。方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、Pubmed、万方数据库,检索时间从建库至今,收集有关奥曲肽联合质子泵抑制剂治疗非静脉曲张上消化道出血的疗效的随机对照试验。由2名评价员独立对所纳入的文献进行资料提取、质量评价并交叉核对,然后采用使用Revman 5.0版软件进行数据统计分析。结果共纳入文献6篇,包括484例患者。Meta分析结果:奥曲肽联合质子泵抑制剂治疗非静脉曲张上消化道出血较单用质子泵抑制剂止血率高。结论奥曲肽联合质子泵抑制剂可有效治疗非静脉曲张上消化道出血,但由于纳入的文献质量不高,可能存在发表性偏倚,因此需要进行更大规模,多中心的随机临床对照研究,从而更客观、全面地评价其疗效。     

Drug therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Assessment of options

The efficacy of somatostatin and octreotide have been widely studied in the control of bleeding from oesophageal varices. It has also been suggested that these drugs may be useful for the control of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding, including that from peptic ulcers. In approximately 80% of patients presenting with non-variceal UGI bleeding, haemorrhage ceases spontaneously and does not recur. However, the remaining 20% of patients require active treatment. Results from recent studies have indicated that somatostatin is an effective treatment for the control of non-variceal UGI bleeding in high-risk patients, i.e. those in whom haemorrhage does not cease spontaneously or is likely to recur. In contrast there is no good evidence available at present to support a role for octreotide, histamine (H(2) antagonists) or proton pump inhibitors in this indication. The efficacy of somatostatin in controlling bleeding in patients with non-variceal UGI bleeding at high risk of mortality upon admission, or rebleeding following endoscopy, coupled with an excellent safety and tolerability profile, suggests it may be a valuable therapeutic option in the management of non-variceal bleeding.     

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.     

Somatostatin and ranitidine in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of somatostatin vs. ranitidine in controlling acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODOLOGY: A total of 48 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to duodenal or gastric ulcer were divided into 2 groups. Group I consisted of 15 patients with Forrest IB and Group II consisted of 30 patients with Forrest II. Two regimens were randomly allocated to all patients within half an hour after the endoscopic procedure: 1) somatostatin-UCB 250 mcg i.v. bolus followed by continuous i.v. infusion at a rate of 6 mg/d for 72 h, or 2) ranitidine 300 mg/d by continuous i.v. infusion for 72 h. RESULTS: In Group I, although mean blood transfusion requirements (no. of units) were lower in patients treated with somatostatin than in those treated with ranitidine, this was not statistically significant (mean +/- SD: 2.56 +/- 3.05 vs. 5.17 +/- 4.96, respectively; P > 0.05); the time of bleeding stop was shorter in the somatostatin group than in the ranitidine group (mean +/- SD: 3.24 +/- 2.45 vs. 11.25 +/- 11.63, respectively; P = 0.0383). The rebleeding and the mortality rates did not differ between the treatment groups in both Group I and Group II. CONCLUSIONS: Somatostatin is more effective than ranitidine in controlling acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with Forrest IB bleeding activity. Somatostatin has no additional benefit in those with Forrest II bleeding activity.     

Bacterial infections in patients with acute hemorrhage due to portal hypertension--personal experience

Acute haemorrhage from the upper gastrointestinal tract is a frequent and serious complication which affects 20-60% patients with cirrhosis of the liver and portal hypertension. It is assumed that bacterial infections can be the direct cause of haemorrhage but accurate data on the influence of infection on the development and course of haemorrhage are lacking. Acute haemorrhage as a result of portal hypertension has a very high mortality, 30-50%, and an early relapse of haemorrhage occurs in as many as 40% of these patients. Most recent meta-analyses indicate that bacterial infection is an independent prognostic factor in failure of haemostasis and has a significant impact on the mortality of these patients. The authors examined for the presence of bacterial infection (blood, urine, throat, ascites) 25 patients with cirrhosis of the liver and acute haemorrhage as a result of portal hypertension and compared the results with a group of 25 patients with cirrhosis of the liver and portal hypertension without acute haemorrhage. According to the results in patients with acute haemorrhage due to portal hypertension there is a significantly higher incidence of bacterial infections than in patients with cirrhosis of the liver and portal hypertension without acute haemorrhage. The results confirm the necessity to administer antibiotic prophylaxis to cirrhotic patients with varicose bleeding, not only to patients with symptoms and evidence of infection but also in their absence. Antibiotic prophylaxis extends the survival period of these patients.