Second‐look endoscopy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms

Routine second‐look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of second‐look endoscopy for gastric ESD. PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku‐chuo‐zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data were combined to calculate a pooled odds ratio (OR) for developing post‐ESD bleeding. The database search yielded three randomized trials (854 patients). Compared with second‐look endoscopy, the pooled OR for post‐ESD bleeding without second‐look endoscopy was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38–1.26, P = 0.228), without significant heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between second‐look endoscopy and no second‐look endoscopy with regard to large tumor size (>20 mm). This systematic review and meta‐analysis showed that second‐look endoscopy had no advantage for the prevention of post‐ESD bleeding in patients without a high risk of 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 therapy versus medical therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal management of bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot is controversial and may include endoscopic therapy or medical therapy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 interventions. Outcomes evaluated in the meta-analysis were recurrent bleeding, need for surgical intervention, length of hospitalization, transfusion requirement, and mortality. RESULTS: Six studies were identified that included 240 patients from the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Spain. Patients in the endoscopic therapy group underwent endoscopic clot removal and treatment of the underlying lesion with thermal energy, electrocoagulation, and/or injection of sclerosants. Rebleeding occurred in 5 of 61 (8.2%) patients in the endoscopic therapy group, compared with 21 of 85 (24.7%) in the medical therapy group (P = .01), for a pooled relative risk of 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.83; number needed to treat, 6.3). There was no difference between endoscopic therapy and medical therapy in length of hospital stay (mean, 6.8 vs 5.6 days; P = .27), transfusion requirement (mean, 3.0 vs 2.8 units of packed red blood cells; P = .75), or mortality (9.8% vs 7%; P = .54). Patients in the endoscopic therapy group were less likely to undergo surgery (pooled relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.98; number needed to treat, 13.3); however, this outcome became nonsignificant when only peer-reviewed studies were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic therapy is superior to medical therapy for preventing recurrent hemorrhage in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and adherent clots. The interventions are comparable with respect to the need for surgical intervention, length of hospital stay, transfusion requirement, and mortality.     

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.     

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding-review the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis methods

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a conditionthat requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate(exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the firstline treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy(within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.     

Randomized controlled trial comparing epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation versus epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation for bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine injection with heat probe coagulation is an effective treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Few studies have investigated the efficacy of dual therapy with epinephrine injection plus either heat probe or argon plasma coagulation for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compared epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation to epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: The study design was prospective, randomized, and controlled. Patients with actively bleeding peptic ulcers, ulcers with adherent clots, or ulcers with nonbleeding visible vessels were randomly assigned to epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation or epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation. Patients with previous gastric surgery, malignant ulcers, and unidentifiable ulcers because of torrential bleeding were excluded. The primary outcome measure was recurrence of bleeding. Secondary outcome measures were initial hemostasis, endoscopic procedure duration, number of patients requiring surgery, mortality within 30 days, and ulcer status at 8 week follow-up endoscopy. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled; 7 with malignant ulcers were excluded after randomization. One hundred eighty-five cases were analyzed, 97 in the heat probe group and 88 in the argon plasma coagulation group. Patient demographics and ulcer characteristics were comparable between the groups. There was no significant difference in terms of initial hemostasis (95.9% vs. 97.7%), frequency of recurrent bleeding (21.6% vs. 17.0%), requirement for emergency surgery (9.3% vs. 4.5%), mean number of units of blood transfused (2.4 vs. 1.7 units), mean hospital stay (8.2 vs. 7.0 days), and hospital mortality (6.2% vs. 5.7%). Sixty (61.8%) patients in the heat probe group and 52 (52.9%) in the argon plasma coagulation group underwent endoscopy at 8 weeks. There was no significant difference between these groups in the relative frequency of nonhealing ulcer at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: Epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation is as safe and effective as epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation in the treatment of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.     

Effect of intravenous proton pump inhibitor regimens and timing of endoscopy on clinical outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding

Background and Aim: The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration and the optimal timing of endoscopy in acute peptic ulcer bleeding remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine the most efficient PPI regimen and optimal timing of endoscopy. Methods: Consecutive patients with suspected bleeding peptic ulcers were enrolled and randomized to receive either a standard regimen or a high‐dose intensive intravenous regimen. Only patients with bleeding peptic ulcers diagnosed at initial endoscopy continued the study. High‐risk patients received endoscopic hemostasis. The primary outcome measure of recurrent bleeding was compared between the two dosage regimens and between early and late endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures compared included need for endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion, hospital stay, surgery and mortality. Results: A total of 875 patients completed the study. Recurrent bleeding occurred in 11.0% in the standard regimen group, statistically higher than that in the intensive regimen group (6.4%, P = 0.02). Mean units of blood transfused and duration of hospital stay were also higher in the standard regimen group (P < 0.001 for each compared to intensive regimen group). However, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in the need for endoscopic hemostasis, need for surgery, and mortality. Recurrence of bleeding was similar between the early and late endoscopy groups. Units of blood transfused and length of hospital stay were both significantly reduced with early endoscopy. Conclusion: High‐dose PPI infusion is more efficacious in reducing rebleeding rate, blood transfusion requirements and hospital stay. Early endoscopy is safe and more effective than late endoscopy.     

Outcome of endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding: Is a second look necessary? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy for GI bleeding is highly effective. Nevertheless, bleeding recurs in 10% to 25% of cases, irrespective of the method of treatment used. Whether a second-look endoscopy with retreatment after initial hemostasis is of clinical value is controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess whether systematic second-look endoscopy with retreatment reduces the risks of recurrent bleeding, salvage surgery, and death in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled studies of the value of second-look endoscopy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding published between 1990 and 2000. Four studies were selected according to predefined criteria. Two investigators extracted the data independently. Pooled risk estimates and number need to treat were calculated for each procedure. Heterogeneity of effects was tested. RESULTS: The absolute risk reduction in clinical recurrent bleeding was 6.2% (p < 0.01). Absolute risk reduction for surgery and mortality were, respectively, 1.7% and 1.0% (not significant). The second look with retreatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent bleeding compared with control patients (OR 0.64; 95% CI [0.44, 0.95]; p < 0.01), with a number needed to treat of 16. There was no heterogeneity among studies. The risk of surgery as well as the risk of death were not significantly influenced by the second-look endoscopy with retreatment (number needed to treat, respectively, 58 and 97). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic second-look endoscopy with retreatment significantly reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding compared with control patients, but it does not substantially reduce the risk of salvage surgery or mortality.     

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.     

Combined epinephrine and bipolar probe coagulation vs. bipolar probe coagulation alone for bleeding peptic ulcer: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment with combined modalities is considered standard of care for patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. This study compared epinephrine injection plus bipolar probe coagulation with bipolar probe coagulation alone in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: Patients with endoscopically confirmed peptic ulcer bleeding (active or visible vessel) seen from January 2000 through December 2002 were prospectively randomized to two groups. The study group (n = 58) had epinephrine injection followed by bipolar coagulation; the control group (n = 56) was treated by bipolar coagulation alone. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of initial hemostasis and the rate of recurrent bleeding. Secondary outcomes were the following: need for surgical intervention to control bleeding, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay (in days), and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The rate of initial hemostasis was significantly higher in the combination therapy group ( p = 0.02; absolute risk reduction 31.6%: 95% CI [5.4, 57.7]). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with respect to all other outcomes measures, except that significantly fewer units of blood were transfused in the combination therapy group ( p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, epinephrine injection plus bipolar coagulation achieved significantly higher rate of initial hemostasis. All other outcome measures were similar with either treatment in patients with non-bleeding stigmata.     

Role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a serious medical problem with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy significantly reduces further bleeding, surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and is now recommended as the first hemostatic modality for these patients. The efficacy of large-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in reducing re-bleeding after endoscopic therapy has been supported by evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. It may be premature to recommend small-dose intravenous injection PPI after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding ulcers. An updated systematic review shows that PPI therapy before endoscopy significantly reduces the proportion with major stigmata and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy. Some studies show that there is no significant difference between oral and intravenous PPIs in raising intragastric pH. However, clinical data is lacking in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding to date.     

Recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer associated with adherent clot: a randomized study comparing endoscopic treatment with medical therapy

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy reduces the recurrence of bleeding from actively bleeding peptic ulcers and those with visible vessels. However, the use of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with adherent clots remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether removal of clot from an ulcer and endoscopic therapy reduces the frequency of recurrent bleeding. METHODS: Patients with acute upper GI bleeding from peptic ulcers with adherent clots and no active bleeding were enrolled in a multicenter study. At each center patients were stratified for age, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and ulcer location, and were randomized to endoscopic or medical management. Endoscopic therapy consisted of injection of the base of the adherent clot with a solution of epinephrine and mechanical removal of the clot. The base of the ulcer and any stigmata of bleeding were then coagulated until cavitation and adequate coagulation were obtained. Patients in both groups received standard medical therapy for peptic ulcer. Patients were evaluated for recurrence of bleeding for 1 month. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled. Rates of recurrent bleeding were 34.3% (12/35) in the medical treatment arm versus 4.8% (1/21) in the endoscopic treatment arm (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GI bleeding caused by gastric or duodenal ulcers with an adherent clot found on endoscopy, endoscopic therapy with injection of the base of the clot, clot removal, and heat probe coagulation significantly reduces the rate of recurrent bleeding compared with medical therapy alone.     

Randomized comparison of endoscopic microwave coagulation and endoscopic sclerosis in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

We conducted a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic microwave coagulation in comparison to endoscopic sclerosis in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. Over 15 months 127 ulcer-bleeding patients with an actively bleeding vessel (N = 21), a non-bleeding vessel (N = 53), oozing hemorrhage (N = 25), or an adherent clot (N = 28) in the ulcer base were randomly assigned during endoscopy to receive treatment with endoscopic sclerosis or with microwave coagulation. There were no significant differences in effectiveness between endoscopic sclerosis and microwave coagulation in any of the assessed parameters: the percentage of patients with major recurrent hemorrhage (5 vs. 12), the percentage who needed emergency surgery (5 vs. 9), the mean (+/- SD) transfusion requirements (0.32 +/- 0.89 vs. 0.78 +/- 1.65), the mean number of hospital days (10.3 +/- 3.5 vs. 10.7 +/- 4.1), and the number of deaths due to bleeding (0 vs. 2) were similar in both groups. No case of perforation occurred in either group. The data suggest that microwave coagulation is as effective and safe as endoscopic sclerosis in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.     

Validity of the Rockall scoring system after endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: The Rockall scoring system was developed in unselected patients, the majority of whom did not receive endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Rockall system in high-risk patients who undergo endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer hemorrhage. METHODS: Rockall scores were calculated in 247 patients with major peptic ulcer bleeding entered into a randomized trial of endoscopic therapy. The observed rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality after endoscopic therapy were compared with predicted rates derived from Rockall's study group. The validity of the Rockall system was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality after endoscopic therapy increased with an increasing Rockall score. Observed rates of recurrent bleeding and mortality were below predicted rates, and calibration of the Rockall system was poor (Mantel-Haenszel chi square = 25.8, p < 0.0001 for recurrent bleeding; Mantel-Haenszel chi square = 15.1, p < 0.0001 for death). For the prediction of recurrent bleeding, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was low (63.4%), but the system was satisfactory when predicting mortality (area under the resulting curve, 84.3%). CONCLUSIONS: After endoscopic therapy for a bleeding peptic ulcer, the Rockall scoring system can identify patients at high risk of death, but it is inadequate for the prediction of recurrent bleeding.     

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.     

Risk factors for bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric epithelial neoplasm

Background: Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is standard therapy in Japan for gastric epithelial neoplasm, the complication rate is unsatisfactory, with postoperative bleeding as the major complication. The aim of the present study was to determine risk factors for post‐ESD bleeding in patients with gastric epithelial neoplasm. Patients and Methods: The study included 764 patients in whom 924 gastric epithelial neoplasms were resected endoscopically between June 2005 and December 2009: the period during which preventative coagulation for all exposed vessels on the artificial ulcer with hemostatic forceps upon completion of ESD was performed routinely. We analyzed the risk factors for bleeding after ESD in relation to the various clinical factors. Results: The post‐ESD bleeding rate was 3.0%. Dialysis (vs no dialysis, P = 0.034), operation time ≥75 min (vs <75 min, P = 0.012) and poor control of bleeding during ESD (vs good control, P = 0.014) were significantly related to post‐ESD bleeding. Poor control of bleeding during ESD (vs good control; P = 0.04) and operation time ≥75 min (vs <75 min; P = 0.012) were significantly related to bleeding after second‐look endoscopy. Conclusions: Patients at high risk for post‐ESD bleeding in gastric epithelial neoplasm were those undergoing dialysis, those in whom operation time was ≥75 min, and those in whom bleeding during ESD was poorly controlled. The latter two are risk factors for bleeding even after second‐look endoscopy.     

Endoscopic clipping versus injection and thermo-coagulation in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Hemoclips, injection therapy and thermocoagulation (heater probe or electrocoagulation) are the most commonly used types of endoscopic hemostasis for the control of non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. AIM: To compare the efficacy of hemoclips versus injection or thermocoagulation in endoscopic hemostasis by pooling data from the literature. Method: Publications in the English literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) as well as abstracts in major international conferences were searched using the keywords "hemoclips" and "bleeding", and 15 trials fulfilling the search criteria were found. Outcome measures included: initial hemostasis (after endoscopic intervention); recurrent bleeding; definitive hemostasis (no recurrent bleeding until the end of follow-up); the requirement for surgical intervention; and all-cause mortality. The heterogeneity of trials was examined and the effects were pooled by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 1156 patients recruited in the 15 studies, 390 were randomly assigned to receive clips alone, 242 received clips combined with injection, 359 received injection alone, and 165 received thermocoagulation with or without injection. Definitive hemostasis was higher with hemoclips (86.5%) than injection (75.4%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.30), or endoscopic clips with injection (88.5%) compared with injections alone (78.1%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.23), leading to a reduced requirement for surgery but no difference in mortality. Compared with thermocoagulation, there was no improvement in definitive hemostasis with clips (81.5% versus 81.2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31). These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. There was also no difference between clips and thermocoagulation in rebleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. The reported locations of failed hemoclip applications included posterior wall of duodenal bulb, posterior wall of gastric body and lesser curve of the stomach. CONCLUSION: Successful application of hemoclips is superior to injection alone but comparable to thermocoagulation in producing definitive hemostasis. There was no difference in all-cause mortality irrespective of the modalities of endoscopic treatment.     

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.     

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?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.     

Factors associated with failure of endoscopic injection haemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcers.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of a submucosal injection of adrenaline solution in endoscopic haemostasis is well documented in patients suffering from peptic ulcer bleeding. After treatment, however, a significant number of patients continue to bleed or rebleed, and require emergency surgical intervention. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with the failure of endoscopic injection haemostatic therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: In the period 1992 to 1998, we prospectively studied all patients suffering from peptic ulcer bleeding and identified endoscopically as being either bleeding actively or carrying a visible vessel. A total of 427 patients (343 men and 84 women; mean age 58.6 +/- 16.6 years) were all subjected to endoscopic injection with adrenaline solution on an emergency basis. Patients who eventually required surgical intervention for permanent haemostasis were considered as endoscopic haemostasis failures, whereas those who did not were considered as endoscopic treatment successes. We evaluated all clinical and endoscopic parameters that might have been related to failure of endoscopic injection therapy. RESULTS: Endoscopic injection haemostasis was successful in 341 patients (79.9%) and a failure in 86 (20.1%) who finally underwent emergency surgical haemostasis. On analysing the examined parameters, failure was significantly related to shock on admission (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.33, 6.97), spurt bleeding at endoscopy (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.51, 3.98), posteriorly located duodenal ulcer (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.37, 7.01) and anastomotic ulcer (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.37, 7.29). Endoscopic injection haemostasis therapy was less effective in patients with chronic ulcers compared to those who had acute NSAID-related ulcers. A history of peptic ulcer (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14, 3.05), previous peptic ulcer bleeding (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.51, 3.98) or non-use of NSAIDs (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.33, 4.62) were negative predictors for the outcome of endoscopic haemostasis. CONCLUSION: With the use of specific clinical and endoscopic characteristics it is possible to define a subgroup of high-risk patients for continued bleeding or rebleeding despite endoscopic injection therapy. These patients may be candidates for intensive monitoring, early surgical intervention or possibly complementary endoscopic haemostatic methods.