Search

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.

DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.

BackgroundTo evaluate roles of intraoperative endoscopy (IOE) in management of severe obscure GI bleeding (OGIB) before vs. after introduction of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and deep enteroscopy (DE).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of patients undergoing IOE for severe OGIB in a tertiary referral center.Results52 patients had laparotomy/IOE for OGIB, 11 pre and 41 post VCE/DE eras. In the pre VCE/DE era, 36.4% (4/11) had preoperative presumptive diagnoses while in the post VCE/DE era presumptive diagnoses were made in 48.8% (20/41) (p = 0.18). Preoperative evaluation led to correct diagnoses in 18.2% (2/11) in the pre and 51.2% (21/41) in the post VCE/DE era (p = 0.09). Vascular lesions and ulcers were the most common diagnoses, but rebleeding was common. No rebleeding was found among patients with tumors, Meckel's diverticulum, and aortoenteric fistula.ConclusionsPresumptive diagnoses in the post VCE/DE era were usually accurate. If VCE or DE are negative, the probability of negative IOE is high. Patients with tumors and Meckel's diverticulum were the best candidates for IOE.

Background & aimsFor 4 decades, stigmata of recent hemorrhage in patients with nonvariceal lesions have been used for risk stratification and endoscopic hemostasis. The arterial blood flow that underlies the stigmata rarely is monitored, but can be used to determine risk for rebleeding. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether Doppler endoscopic probe monitoring of blood flow improves risk stratification and outcomes in patients with severe nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.MethodsIn a single-blind study performed at 2 referral centers we assigned 148 patients with severe nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (125 with ulcers, 19 with Dieulafoy's lesions, and 4 with Mallory Weiss tears) to groups that underwent standard, visually guided endoscopic hemostasis (control, n = 76), or endoscopic hemostasis assisted by Doppler monitoring of blood flow under the stigmata (n = 72). The primary outcome was the rate of rebleeding after 30 days; secondary outcomes were complications, death, and need for transfusions, surgery, or angiography.ResultsThere was a significant difference in the rates of lesion rebleeding within 30 days of endoscopic hemostasis in the control group (26.3%) vs the Doppler group (11.1%) (P = .0214). The odds ratio for rebleeding with Doppler monitoring was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.143-0.8565) and the number needed to treat was 7.ConclusionsIn a randomized controlled trial of patients with severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage from ulcers or other lesions, Doppler probe guided endoscopic hemostasis significantly reduced 30-day rates of rebleeding compared with standard, visually guided hemostasis. Guidelines for nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding should incorporate these results. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00732212 (CLIN-013-07F).

ObjectivesOur aims were to assess risks of early rebleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis for Forrest oozing (FIB) peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs) compared with other stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH).MethodsThese were post hoc multivariable analyses of a large, international, double-blind study (NCT00251979) of patients randomized to high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole (PPI) or placebo for 72 h. Rebleeding rates of patients with PUB SRH treated with either PPI or placebo after successful endoscopic hemostasis were also compared.ResultsFor patients treated with placebo for 72 h after successful endoscopic hemostasis, rebleed rates by SRH were spurting arterial bleeding (FIA) 22.5%, adherent clot (FIIB) 17.6%, non-bleeding visible vessel (FIIA) 11.3%, and oozing bleeding (FIB) 4.9%. Compared with FIB patients, FIA, FIIB, and FIIA had significantly greater risks of rebleeding with odds ratios (95% CI's) from 2.61 (1.05, 6.52) for FIIA to 6.66 (2.19, 20.26) for FIA. After hemostasis, PUB rebleeding rates for FIB patients at 72 h were similar with esomeprazole (5.4%) and placebo (4.9%), whereas rebleed rates for all other major SRH (FIA, FIIA, FIIB) were lower for PPI than placebo, but the treatment by SRH interaction test was not statistically significant.ConclusionsAfter successful endoscopic hemostasis, FIB patients had very low PUB rebleeding rates irrespective of PPI or placebo treatment. This implies that after successful endoscopic hemostasis the prognostic classification of FIB ulcers as a high-risk SRH and the recommendation to treat these with high-dose IV PPI's should be re-evaluated.

With mortality due to gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding remaining stable, the focus on endoscopic hemostasis has been on improving other outcomes such as rebleeding rate, need for transfusions, and need for angiographic embolization or surgery. Over the past few years, a number of devices have emerged to help endoscopically assess and treat bleeding GI lesions. These include the Doppler endoscopic probe, hemostatic powder, and over-the-scope clip. Also, new applications have been described for radiofrequency ablation. In this article, we will discuss these evolving tools and techniques that have been developed, including an analysis of their efficacy and limitations.

Background and aimsFor more than 4 decades endoscopists have relied on ulcer stigmata for risk stratification and as a guide to hemostasis. None used arterial blood flow underneath stigmata to predict outcomes. For patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), we used a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) for (1) detection of blood flow underlying stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), (2) quantitating rates of residual arterial blood flow under SRH after visually directed standard endoscopic treatment, and (3) comparing risks of rebleeding and actual 30-day rebleed rates for spurting arterial bleeding (Forrest [F] IA) and oozing bleeding (F IB).MethodsProspective cohort study of 163 consecutive patients with severe PUB and different SRH.ResultsAll blood flow detected by the DEP was arterial. Detection rates were 87.4% in major SRH-spurting arterial bleeding (F IA), non-bleeding visible vessel (F IIA), clot (F IIB)-and were significantly lower at 42.3% (P < .0001) for an intermediate group of oozing bleeding (F IB) or flat spot (F IIC). For spurting bleeding (F IA) versus oozing (F IB), baseline DEP arterial flow was 100% versus 46.7%, residual blood flow detected after endoscopic hemostasis was 35.7% versus 0%, and 30-day rebleed rates were 28.6% versus 0% (all P < .05).Conclusions(1) For major SRH versus oozing or spot, the arterial blood flow detection rate by the DEP was significantly higher, indicating a higher rebleed risk. (2) Before and after endoscopic treatment, spurting (F IA) PUB had significantly higher rates of blood flow detection than oozing (F IB) PUB and a significantly higher 30-day rebleed rate. (3) The DEP is recommended as a new endoscopic guide with SRH to improve risk stratification and potentially definitive hemostasis for PUB.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer in Denmark has resulted in more patients being diagnosed with benign adenomas and early-stage rectal cancer. In general, TRUS is accepted as a good modality for evaluating the above mentioned before deciding on surgery. Objective: To investigate the accuracy of TRUS in a clinical setting at the Region Hospital in Herning, Denmark. Study design: Retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to June 2018. Methods: Quantitative method. The cohort (117 patients) was recruited by searching for specific procedure codes. Data were collected by going through the electronic patient files. Results: TRUS predicted T0, T1, T2 and T3 with an accuracy of 91%, 35%, 43% and 20% respectively and an overall accuracy of 68%. A weighted Cohens kappa value of 0.30 (p .05). TRUS differentiated between T0/T1 with a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 85% and an accuracy of 85% and kappa value of 0.44 (p .05). Conclusion: TRUS can with great precision establish whether the tumor is benign so correct local treatment can be instituted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic management of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an advanced procedure associated with high morbidity and mortality. The traditional apprentice model of training for such events is often inadequate because of their unpredictable frequency, common occurrence off hours, and high stakes for patient outcome. Hemostasis is the cessation of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding with an endoscopic intervention. Proficiency in endoscopic management of GI hemorrhage includes proper preparation, a systematic categorization of both the source of bleeding and the technique used to control it, the necessary knowledge base, and technical skills to perform the endoscopic intervention. Various simulation platforms, including virtual reality simulators, in vivo models, and explanted tissue, can be helpful in gaining proficiency in endoscopic hemostasis, although validated criteria for obtaining and maintaining procedural competence in this area are still lacking. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Use of proton-pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding is controversial because discrepant results have been reported in different ethnic groups. Objective: To determine whether intravenous esomeprazole prevents recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding better than placebo in a multiethnic patient sample. Design: Randomized trial conducted between October 2005 and December 2007; patients, providers, and researchers were blinded to group assignment. Setting: 91 hospital emergency departments in 16 countries. Patients: Patients 18 years or older with peptic ulcer bleeding from a single gastric or duodenal ulcer showing high-risk stigmata. Intervention: Intravenous esomeprazole bolus, 80 mg, followed by 8-mg/h infusion, over 72 hours or matching placebo, each given after successful endoscopic hemostasis. Intervention was allocated by computer-generated randomization. After infusion, both groups received oral esomeprazole, 40 mg/d, for 27 days. Measurements: The primary end point was rate of clinically significant recurrent bleeding within 72 hours. Recurrent bleeding within 7 and 30 days, death, surgery, endoscopic re-treatment, blood transfusions, hospitalization, and safety were also assessed. Results: Of 767 patients randomly assigned, 764 provided data for an intention-to-treat analysis (375 esomeprazole recipients and 389 placebo recipients). Fewer patients receiving intravenous esomeprazole (22 of 375) had recurrent bleeding within 72 hours than those receiving placebo (40 of 389) (5.9% vs. 10.3%; difference, 4.4 percentage points [95% CI, 0.6% to 8.3%]; P = 0.026). The difference in bleeding recurrence remained significant at 7 days and 30 days (P = 0.010). Esomeprazole also reduced endoscopic retreatment (6.4% vs. 11.6%; difference, 5.2 percentage points [95% CI of difference, 1.1 percentage points to 9.2 percentage points]; P = 0.012), surgery (2.7% vs. 5.4%), and all-cause mortality rates (0.8% vs. 2.1%) more than placebo, although differences for the latter 2 comparisons were not significant. About 10% and 40% of patients in both groups reported serious and nonserious adverse events, respectively. Limitation: Endoscopic therapy was not completely standardized; some patients received epinephrine injection, thermal coagulation, or hemoclips alone, whereas others received combination therapy, but there were similar proportions with single therapy in each group. Conclusion: High-dose intravenous esomeprazole given after successful endoscopic therapy to patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding reduced recurrent bleeding at 72 hours and had sustained clinical benefits for up to 30 days. Primary Funding Source: AstraZeneca Research and Development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

OJECTIVES: No published data are available on the risk of further neoplastic progression in Barrett's patients stratified by baseline dysplasia status. Our aims were to estimate and compare the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer in groups of Barrett's patients stratified by baseline dysplasia status.METHODS: Consecutive Barrett's cases from 1988–2002 were identified via pathology databases in a regional VA health-care system and medical record data were abstracted. The risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer was measured and compared in cases withversuswithout low-grade dysplasia within 1 yr of index endoscopy using survival analysis.RESULTS: A total of 575 Barrett's cases had 2,775 patient-years of follow-up. There were 13 incident cases of high-grade dysplasia and two of cancer. The crude rate of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was 1 of 78 patient-years for those with baseline dysplasiaversus1 of 278 patient-years for those without (p= 0.001). One case of high-grade dysplasia in each group underwent successful therapy. One incident cancer case underwent successful resection and the other was unresectable. Two cases with high-grade dysplasia later developed cancer, one died postoperatively, the other was unresectable. When these two cases were included (total of four cancers), the crude rate of cancer was 1 of 274 patient-years for those with baseline dysplasiaversus1 of 1,114 patient-years for those without.CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort study of Barrett's, incident malignancy was uncommon. The rate of progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer was significantly higher in those with baseline low-grade dysplasia. These data may warrant reevaluation of current Barrett's surveillance strategies.(Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:775–783) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) is an extremely common endoscopic finding in patients with portal hypertension. This article examines the various endoscopic grading systems that have been developed for PHG with further discussion on the risk of bleeding with PHG and if endoscopic grading can predict the risk of bleeding. Finally, both the nonendoscopic and endoscopic treatment modalities for acute and chronic bleeding secondary to PHG are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The clinical indication for urgent endoscopy with combined diagnosis and treatment is bleeding severe enough to warrant urgent medical attention. Stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage are utilized as a guide to endoscopic therapy. Active arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent nonbleeding clots are always treated endoscopically. In randomized trials, patients with these "major stigmata" had better outcomes from endoscopic therapies than with medical therapies alone. Flat spots, gray or black sloughs, and clean ulcer bases are not treated endoscopically, since medical therapy alone affords good outcome. The current recommendation is to treat major stigmata of hemorrhage endoscopically for the initial bleeding episode and a second time for rebleeding before considering ulcer surgery. Clinical presentation and comorbidity and the endoscopic appearance of the ulcer (i.e., stigmata of hemorrhage) of patients with UGI bleeding are used to determine the subsequent level of care (e.g., discharge or ward or intensive care). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Focuses on treatment of patients at high risk for recurrent bleeding from a peptic ulcer. Effect of clots in patients with ulcer; Technique by which arteries less than 2 mm in diameter can be coagulated; Preferred treatment when endoscopy shows adherent clots and nonbleeding visible vessels.

Background: Although endoscopy is often used to diagnose and treat acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, its role in the management of diverticulosis and lower gastrointestinal bleeding is uncertain. Methods: We studied the role of urgent colonoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of 121 patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis. All patients were hospitalized, received blood transfusions as needed, and received a purge to rid the colon of clots, stool, and blood. Colonoscopy was performed within 6 to 12 hours after hospitalization or the diagnosis of hematochezia. Among the first 73 patients, those with continued diverticular bleeding underwent hemicolectomy. For the subsequent 48 patients, those requiring treatment received therapy, such as epinephrine injections or bipolar coagulation, through the colonoscope. Results: Of the first 73 patients, 17 (23 percent) had definite signs of diverticular hemorrhage (active bleeding in 6, nonbleeding visible vessels in 4, and adherent clots in 7). Nine of the 17 had additional bleeding after colonoscopy, and 6 of these required hemicolectomy. Of the subsequent 48 patients, 10 (21 percent) had definite signs of diverticular hemorrhage (active bleeding in 5, nonbleeding visible vessels in 2, and adherent clots in 3). An additional 14 patients in this group (29 percent) were presumed to have diverticular bleeding because although they had no stigmata of diverticular hemorrhage, no other source of bleeding was identified. The other 24 patients (50 percent) had other identified sources of bleeding. All 10 patients with definite diverticular hemorrhage were treated endoscopically; none had recurrent bleeding or required surgery. Conclusions: Among patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis, at least one fifth have definite diverticular hemorrhage. Colonoscopic treatment of such patients with epinephrine injections, bipolar coagulation, or both may prevent recurrent bleeding and decrease the need for surgery. (N Engl J Med 2000;342:78-82.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]