Local therapeutic injection in bleeding peptic ulcer: a comparison of adrenaline to adrenaline plus a sclerosing agent.

OBJECTIVE: a) To analyse the probability of haemodynamic changes in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGB), as well as the risk of bleeding in cases of peptic ulcer; and b) to compare an injection of epinephrine alone with epinephrine plus an sclerosing agent in ulcers with a high risk of persistent or recurrent bleeding. METHODS: We studied 500 consecutive patients (295 males/205 females) who were admitted because of an NV-UGB episode. Haemodynamic evaluation and upper endoscopy were performed in all patients. They were randomised to receive an injection of epinephrine 1:10.000 or epinephrine plus 2% polidocanol in case of active bleeding, visible vessel or unstable clot. RESULTS: 263/500 (52.6%) were taking NSAIDs before the acute bleeding. 70/96 (72.9%) patients with red haematemesis showed haemodynamic changes vs 15/107 (14%) with dark haematemesis and melena, and 29/281 (10.3%) with melena alone, p < 0.01, OR = 20. Duodenal ulcer was the cause of NV-UGB in 206 cases (40.6%) and gastric ulcer in 134 (27.2%). However, an endoscopic therapy was performed in 85 patients, 58 with gastric ulcers (19 with active bleeding, 33 with visible vessel and 6 with unstable clot) vs 27 with duodenal ulcers (6 with active bleeding, 19 with visible vessel and 2 with unstable clot), p < 0.01, OR = 4.7. 15/85 patients developed recurrent bleeding after injection therapy: 3 with a non-bleeding visible vessel and 10 with active bleeding (10 were treated with epinephrine and 2 with epinephrine plus 2% polidocanol, p < 0.04, OR = 8). A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, active bleeding and type of injected agent were the only independent variables associated with failure of treatment and recurrent bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: a) 52.6% of patients with NV-UGB were taking NSAIDs before acute bleeding; b) epinephrine injection followed by a sclerosing agent is more effective in case of active bleeding; however, there is no difference in case of visible vessel or unstable clot; and c) age, active bleeding and type of treatment were the only independent variables associated with recurrent bleeding.     

药物注射联合氩离子凝固对消化性溃疡出血的疗效分析

目的 比较内镜下药物注射联合氩离子凝固治疗及单一治疗对上消化道溃疡出血的疗效.方法 将303例内镜下有活动出血的溃疡患者分为3组.157例接受内镜下药物注射止血治疗,51例接受氩离子凝固止血治疗,95例接受药物注射联合氩离子凝固治疗.结果 三种方法的即时止血率均为100%,有效止血率在药物注射组、氩离子及联合治疗组分别为为87.9%、86.3%、91.6%,三组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05).所有病例无穿孔及其它术后并发症.结论 药物注射联合氩离子凝同治疗为安全有效的止血方法,但并没有显著提高止血率.     

Endoscopic local injection of ethanolamine oleate and thrombin as an effective treatment for bleeding duodenal ulcer: a controlled trial.

The injection of a mixture of ethanolamine oleate and thrombin as an effective treatment for bleeding duodenal ulcer was evaluated in 38 patients entered in a randomised prospective controlled trial. After a one week observation period, 1/19 (5.3%) treated patients and 11/19 (57.9%) control patients had suffered further bleeding (p less than 0.005; CI = 22%-74%). Emergency surgery was required in 1/19 in the treated group compared with 8/19 in the untreated group (CI = 13%-61%; p less than 0.05). The mean (SD) transfusion requirement in the treated group was 1.9 (0.5) U blood compared with 5.3 (0.7) U in the control group. No significant differences related to mortality were detected. In conclusion, local injection therapy is an effective means of haemostasis in patients with bleeding duodenal ulcer who are at risk of further bleeding.     

Endoscopic injection sclerosis: effective treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer.

One hundred and nine patients presenting with severe haemorrhage from benign peptic ulcers were randomised to either endoscopic injection sclerotherapy using a combination of 1:100,000 adrenaline and 5% ethanolamine or to conservative treatment. Only high risk patients with active bleeding or endoscopic stigmata of recent haemorrhage and accessible ulcers were considered. The two groups were well matched for age, shock, haemoglobin concentration, endoscopic findings, and consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The group treated endoscopically had a significantly reduced rebleeding rate (12.5% v 47%, p less than 0.001). Rebleeding was successfully treated in some patients by injection sclerotherapy, other patients underwent urgent surgery. While there was a tendency towards a lower operation rate and lower transfusion requirements in the treated group, this failed to achieve statistical significance. The use of injection sclerotherapy in the conservatively treated group after rebleeding undoubtedly reduced the number of surgical operations. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy is effective in the prevention of rebleeding in these patients.     

Endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcers: randomised comparison of adrenaline injection and adrenaline injection + Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation.

Forty two patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcers with visible vessels were enrolled in a randomised study comparing endoscopic haemostasis with adrenaline (1:10,000) injections (adrenaline group) and adrenaline injection + neodymium yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser photocoagulation (adrenaline + laser group). The two groups (21 patients each) were well matched for factors affecting outcome. Surgery was performed for continued haemorrhage uncontrolled by endoscopic treatment or rebleeding after two endoscopic treatments. Haemostasis after one treatment was similar in the two groups: adrenaline 16/21 (76%), adrenaline + laser 18/21 (86%). Haemostasis after two treatments was numerically (0.05 less than p less than 0.10) greater in the adrenaline + laser group: 21/21 (100%) v 18/21 (86%). Three patients (14%) in the adrenaline group underwent uneventful emergency surgery. There were no deaths or procedure related complications in either group. Most bleeds from peptic ulcers with visible vessels can be controlled endoscopically without the need for surgery. Both treatments in this study proved highly efficacious in securing haemostasis. Adrenaline injection treatment seems to be the treatment of choice in view of its simplicity, low cost, and availability. Additional Nd:YAG laser treatment may provide a marginal improvement in efficacy, although a much larger trial would be required to prove this.     

Endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline–epinephrine injection for peptic ulcer bleeding

Background. Treating patients of bleeding peptic ulcers with heater probe thermocoagulation and haemoclip is considered to be safe and very effective. Yet, there is no report comparing the haemostatic effects of endoscopic haemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline–epinephrine injection in these patients.

Aim. To compare the clinical outcomes of both therapeutic modalities in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

Methods. A total of 93 patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels were randomised to receive either endoscopic haemoclip (n=46) or heater probe thermocoagulation plus hypertonic saline–epinephrine injection (n=47). Five patients from the haemoclip group were excluded because of the inability to place the haemoclip.

Results. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 39 patients (95.1%) of the haemoclip group and 47 patients (100%) of the heater probe group (P>0.1). Rebleeding occurred in four patients (10.3%) of the haemoclip group and three patients (6.4%) of the heater probe group (P>0.1). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery and the mortality rates were not statistically different between the two groups.

Conclusions. If the haemoclip can be applied properly, the clinical outcomes of the haemoclip group would be similar to those of the heater probe group in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, if the bleeders are located at the difficult-to-approach sites, heater probe plus hypertonic saline injection is the first choice therapy.     

Prediction of therapeutic failure after adrenaline injection plus heater probe treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: Continued or recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding ulcer is a major adverse prognostic factor. Identification of such ulcers may allow for alternate treatments. AIM: To determine factors predicting treatment failure with combined adrenaline injection and heater probe thermocoagulation. Methods: Consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who received endoscopic therapy between January 1995 and March 1998 were studied. Data on clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and treatment outcomes were collected prospectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for treatment failure. RESULTS: During the study period, 3386 patients were admitted with bleeding peptic ulcers: 1144 (796 men, 348 women) with a mean age of 62.5 (SD 17.6) years required endoscopic treatment. There were 666 duodenal ulcers (58.2%), 425 gastric ulcers (37.2%), and 53 anastomotic ulcers (4.6%). Initial haemostasis was successful in 1128 patients (98.6%). Among them, 94 (8.2%) rebled in a median time of 48 hours (range 3-480). Overall failure rate was 9.6%. Mortality rate was 5% (57/1144). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that hypotension (odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-3.48), haemoglobin level less that 10 g/dl (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96), fresh blood in the stomach (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.40-3.31), ulcer with active bleeding (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.56), and large ulcers (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.15-2.83) were independent factors predicting rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Larger ulcers with severe bleeding at presentation predict failure of endoscopic therapy.     

Endoscopic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate injection) for acute rectal varices bleeding in a patient with liver cirrhosis

Treatment for acute rectal bleeding from rectal varices in a patient with liver cirrhosis is often difficult. Herein, we report an elderly male with cirrhosis who successfully underwent endoscopic sclerotherapy for rectal bleeding from rectal varices. He had a history of esophageal varices, which were treated by endoscopic sclerotherapy. Three years after the treatment of esophageal varices, he developed massive bright red rectal bleeding. Taking into consideration the risk of treating rectal varices by surgery, we decided to try endoscopic sclerotherapy of the rectal varices. In this case, we injected 16.4 mL of 5% ethanolamine oleate with iopamidole to the rectal varices for the purpose of confirmation of the feeding vein for the varices. After six months, the rectal varices had disappeared. We believe endoscopic sclerotherapy might be an effective therapeutic modality for rectal varices with cirrhosis.     

Efficacy of endoscopic clipping for actively bleeding peptic ulcer: comparison with polidocanol injection therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of hemostatic clips is conceptually attractive for achieving definitive hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding. There are only a few clinical trials comparing clipping with other endoscopic hemostatic methods. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic clipping with that of injection of polidocanol for hemostasis from actively (spurting or oozing) bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODOLOGY: 61 patients with active (spurting or oozing) bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers were randomly assigned to one of two endoscopic treatments: injection therapy with polidocanol 1% (injected in 0.5-1.0 mL increments at three to five sites around the bleeding vessel to a total of 5 mL) (n=30), or endoscopic clipping using a clipping device and clips (n=31). All patients from the polidocanol group and 22 (68.8%) patients from the clipping group received pretreatment with epinephrine. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, amounts of blood transfusion, and durations of hospital stay were analyzed. RESULTS: The initial hemostatic rate was 96.8% in the clipping group, and 96.7% in the polidocanol group, respectively. Mean transfusion requirements, mean number of hospital days and percentage needing surgery were comparable in both groups. Recurrent bleeding rates were higher, although not statistically significant in the polidocanol group than in the clipping group (13.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that injection therapy with polidocanol and endoscopic hemoclips seems to be equivalent for actively (spurting and oozing) bleeding peptic ulcer.     

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.     

Endoscopic hemoclip treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

AIM To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.METHODS Totally, 40 patients with F1a and F1b hemorrhagic activity of peptic ulcers were enrolled in this uncontrolled prospective study for endoscopic hemoclip treatment. We used a newly developed rotatable clip-device for the application of hemoclip (MD850) to stop bleeding. Endoscopy was repeated if there was any sign or suspicion of rebleeding, and reclipping was performed if necessary and feasible.RESULTS Initial hemostatic rate by clipping was 95%, and rebleeding rate was only 8%.Ultimate hemostatic rates were 87%, 96%, and 93% in the F1a and F1b subgroups, and total cases, respectively. In patients with shock on admission, hemoclipping achieved ultimate hemostasis of 71% and 83% in F1a and F1b subgroups, respectively. Hemostasis reached 100% in patients without shock regardless of hemorrhagic activity being F1a or F1b. The average number of clips used per case was 3.0 (range 2- 5). Spurting bleeders required more clips on average than did oozing bleeders (3.4 versus 2.8 ). We observed no obvious complications, no tissue injury, or impairment of ulcer healing related to hemoclipping.CONCLUSION Endoscopic hemoclip placement is an effective and safe method. With the improvement of the clip and application device,the procedure has become easier and much more efficient. Endoscopic hemoclipping deserves further study in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.     

Endoscopic Doppler ultrasound after injection therapy for peptic ulcer hemorrhage

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A positive Doppler signal in endoscopic Doppler ultrasound at index endoscopy predicts a high risk for rebleeding from peptic ulcer. The aim of this study was to evaluate if a negative Doppler status immediately after injection therapy may exclude a rebleeding from peptic ulcer in a high-risk cohort. METHODOLOGY: Twenty consecutive patients (pts) (age: 68 (33-91) yrs; 11 female) with peptic ulcer bleeding were enrolled. All patients with an actively bleeding ulcer and those with a non-actively bleeding, but Doppler-positive ulcer were treated by injection of adrenaline (1:10,000 dilution). Treatment was performed during index endoscopy until the Doppler status was negative. Patients were followed-up clinically and endoscopically (including Doppler ultrasound) for bleeding recurrence. RESULTS: Patients were treated by injection of 12 (6 to 20) mL of adrenaline solution until Doppler scan was negative. During follow-up four pts (20%) had a clinically overt rebleeding episode. At control endoscopy three ulcers were actively bleeding and another two were Doppler positive without rebleeding (total: five of eighteen (27.7%) Doppler-positive ulcers). Two of the twenty pts required surgical therapy due to rebleeding (10%). CONCLUSIONS: A negative endoscopic Doppler status immediately after injection therapy is not helpful to identify patients with no risk for rebleeding from peptic ulcer.     

Large-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine plus normal saline for peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Large-volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine has been proven to significantly reduce rates of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Injection of normal saline may be equally effective for the similar hemostatic effect of local tamponade. The aim of our study was to compare the therapeutic effects of large-volume (40 mL) endoscopic injections of epinephrine, normal saline and a combination of the two in patients with active bleeding ulcers. METHOD: A total of 216 patients with actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) were randomly assigned to three groups (1:10,000 epinephrine, normal saline or diluted epinephrine plus normal saline). The hemostatic effects and clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: The initial hemostatic rate was significantly lower in the normal saline group (P < 0.05). The volume of injected solution required for the arrest of bleeding was significantly larger in the normal saline group (P < 0.01). Mean duration for arrest of bleeding was significantly longer in the normal saline group (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to the rates of recurrent bleeding, surgical intervention, 30-day mortality, amount of transfusion and duration of hospitalization. Significant elevation of systolic blood pressure (P < 0.05) and persistent high pulse rate after endoscopic injection were observed in the epinephrine group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with active bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing), we recommend a large-volume (40 mL) combination injection using diluted epinephrine to cease bleeding, followed by injection of normal saline to achieve sustained hemostasis.     

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

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

Endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcer using a hemostatic clip or pure ethanol injection

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic hemostasis is frequently chosen as the treatment of first choice for bleeding peptic ulcers. We retrospectively compared the hemostatic effects of hemoclips and endoscopic ethanol injection in patients with bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers. METHODOLOGY: The subjects were 149 patients with 156 bleeding peptic ulcer lesions who were treated by endoscopic hemostasis, comprising 127 gastric ulcers and 29 duodenal ulcers. Hemoclips were used for 68 lesions (hemoclip group) and ethanol injection was done for 88 lesions (ethanol group). RESULTS: The hemostasis rates were 98.5% for the hemoclip group and 92.0% for the ethanol group. There was no significant difference in hemostatic effect between these two methods. All patients with unsuccessful hemostasis had a visible vessel larger than 2.0 mm in diameter and/or concomitant disease. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that these two endoscopic hemostatic methods are both highly effective. The presence of a large visible vessel may be predictive of unsuccessful hemostasis.     

A prospective, randomized trial comparing mechanical methods of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection to epinephrine injection alone for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: The hemostatic efficacy of mechanical methods of hemostasis, together with epinephrine injection, was compared with that of epinephrine injection alone in bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Ninety patients with a peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to undergo a mechanical method of hemostasis (23 hemoclip application, 22 band ligation) plus epinephrine injection, or epinephrine injection alone. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 44/45 (97.8%) patients in both groups. The mean number of hemoclips and elastic bands applied were 2.8: 95% CI[2.5, 3.1] and 1.1: 95% CI[1.0, 1.2], respectively, and the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.9 mL: 95% CI[19.3 mL, 20.5 mL]. The rate of recurrent bleeding in the combination group (2/44, 4.5%) was significantly lower in comparison with the injection group (9/44, 20.5%, p < 0.05). The mean number of therapeutic endoscopic sessions needed to achieve permanent hemostasis in the combination group (1.04: 95% CI[1.01, 1.07]) was significantly lower vs. the injection group (1.22: 95% CI[1.15, 1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of an endoscopic mechanical method of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection is more effective than epinephrine injection alone for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.