Search

Background and aimsNo prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) has reported patient outcomes of large over-the-scope clip (OTSC) compared to standard hemostasis as initial endoscopic treatment of severe NVUGIB. This was our study aim.MethodsPatients with bleeding ulcers or Dieulafoy's lesions and major stigmata of hemorrhage - SRH (active spurting bleeding, visible vessel, or clot) - or lesser SRH (oozing bleeding or flat spots - with arterial blood flow by Doppler probe) were randomized to OTSC or standard endoscopic hemostasis (with hemoclips or multipolar electrocoagulation - MPEC). Patients and their healthcare providers were blinded to treatments and made all post-randomization management decisions. Ulcer patients received high dose intravenous infusions of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for 3 days, then 27 days of oral PPI. 30 day outcomes were prospectively recorded; data management was with SAS; and data analysis was by a statistician.Results53 patients (25 OTSC, 28 Standard) were randomized, with similar baseline risk factors. However, there were significant differences in OTSC vs. Standard groups in rates of rebleeding (4% vs. 28.6%; p = .017; relative risk 0.10, 95% confidence intervals 0.01, 0.91; number needed to treat 4); severe complications (0 % vs. 14.3%); and post-randomization units of red cell transfusions (0.04 vs. 0.68). All rebleeds occurred in patients with major SRH and none with lesser SRH.Conclusion1. OTSC significantly reduced rates of rebleeding, severe complications, and post-randomization red cell transfusions. 2. Patients with major stigmata benefited significantly from hemostasis with OTSC, but those with lesser stigmata did not. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03065465).

BackgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains a common cause of hospitalisation. However, interpretation and comparisons of published studies in GIB have been hampered by disparate study methodology.AimsTo make recommendations about outcome measures to be used in future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute bleeding from any GI source (nonvariceal UGI, variceal, small bowel, or colon) and suggest new RCTs in acute GIB for future peer-reviewed funding.MethodsAs part of a National Institutes of Health conference entitled "Hemostatic Outcomes in Clinical Trials", a group of GIB experts performed targeted critical reviews of available evidence with the goal of proposing a bleeding outcome that could potentially be applied to different disciplines. In addition, the panel sought to develop a clinically meaningful primary endpoint specifically for acute GIB, potentially allowing a more contemporary regrouping of clinically relevant outcomes.ResultsThe primary endpoint proposed was a composite outcome of further bleeding within 30 days after randomisation leading to red blood cell transfusion, urgent intervention (repeat endoscopy; interventional radiology or surgery), or death. Secondary outcomes may include the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalisation, serious adverse events, and health care resource utilisation.ConclusionThe proposed endpoint may help move the GIB field forward by focusing on the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients with acute GIB of all types and informing study design and importance of sample size determination for future RCTs in GIB.

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.

BackgroundThe sites of origin, causes and outcomes of severe hematochezia have not been compared between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics. In cirrhotics versus non-cirrhotics presenting with severe hematochezia, we aimed at (1) identifying the site and etiology of gastro-intestinal bleeding and independent predictors of bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal tract versus small bowel or the colon, (2) comparing 30-day clinical outcomes, and (3) proposing an algorithm for management of severe hematochezia.MethodsIn this cohort study from two university-based medical centers, 860 consecutive patients with severe hematochezia admitted from 1995 to 2011 were prospectively enrolled with 160 (18.6 %) cirrhotics. We studied (a) general clinical and laboratory characteristics of cirrhotics versus non-cirrhotics, (b) predictors of bleeding sites in each patient group by multiple variable regression analysis, and compared (c) 30-day outcomes, including rebleeding, surgery and deaths.ResultsCirrhosis independently predicted an upper gastrointestinal source of bleeding (OR 3.47; 95 % CI 2.01-5.96) as well as history of hematemesis, melena in the past 30 days, positive nasogastric aspirate, prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding or use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. The most prevalent diagnoses were esophageal varices (20 %) in cirrhotics and colon diverticular bleeding (27.1 %) in non-cirrhotics. Thirty-day rates of rebleeding, surgical interventions and deaths were 23.1 versus 15 % (P = 0.01), 14.4 versus 6.4 % (P

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 aimsFew prospective reports describe the short-term natural history of colon diverticular hemorrhage based on stigmata of recent hemorrhage, and none include blood flow detection for risk stratification or as a guide to definitive hemostasis. Our purposes were to report the 30-day natural history of definitive diverticular hemorrhage based on stigmata and to describe Doppler probe blood flow detection as a guide to definitive hemostasis.MethodsDifferent cohorts of patients with severe diverticular bleeding and stigmata on urgent colonoscopy are reported. For 30-day natural history, patients were treated medically. If severe rebleeding occurred, they had surgical or angiographic treatment. We report natural history with major stigmata (active bleeding, visible vessel, or adherent clot) and no stigmata or flat spots after clots were washed away. We also report Doppler probe detection of arterial blood flow underneath stigmata before and after hemostasis in a recent cohort.ResultsFor natural history, patients with major stigmata treated medically had 65.8% (25/38) rebleeding rates, and 44.7% (17/38) had intervention for hemostasis. Patients with spots or clean bases had no rebleeding. A Doppler probe detected arterial blood flow in 92% of major stigmata--none after hemostasis--and there was no rebleeding.Conclusions(1) Patients with major stigmata treated medically had high rates of rebleeding and intervention for hemostasis. (2) Patients with clean diverticula or only flat spots had no rebleeding. (3) High rates of arterial blood flow were detected under major stigmata with a Doppler probe, but with obliteration by hemostasis no rebleeding occurred.

Background and aimsImproved medical decisions by using a score at the initial patient triage level may lead to improvements in patient management, outcomes, and resource utilization. There is no validated score for management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) unlike for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracies of 3 different prognostic scores [Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score, Charlson index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score] for the prediction of 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death in severe LGIB.MethodsData on consecutive patients hospitalized with severe gastrointestinal bleeding from January 2006 to October 2011 in our 2 tertiary academic referral centers were prospectively collected. Sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve were computed for 3 scores for predictions of rebleeding, surgery, and mortality at 30 days.ResultsTwo hundred thirty-five consecutive patients with LGIB were included between 2006 and 2011. Twenty-three percent of patients rebled, 6% had surgery, and 7.7% of patients died. The accuracies of each score never reached 70% for predicting rebleeding or surgery in either. The ASA score had a highest accuracy for predicting mortality within 30 days (83.5%), whereas the Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score and the Charlson index both had accuracies

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.

AimTo describe the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of end stage liver disease (ESLD) patients with severe epistaxis thought to be severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH).MethodsThis observational single center study included all consecutive patients with ESLD and epistaxis identified from consecutive subjects hospitalized with suspected UGIH and prospectively enrolled in our databases of severe UGIH between 1998 and 2011.ResultsA total of 1249 patients were registered for severe UGIH in the data basis, 461 (36.9%) were cirrhotics. Epistaxis rather than UGIH was the bleeding source in 20 patients. All patients had severe coagulopathy. Epistaxis was initially controlled in all cases. Fifteen (75%) subjects required posterior nasal packing and 2 (10%) embolization in addition to correction of coagulopathy. Five (25%) patients died in the hospital, 12 (60%) received orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), and 3 (15%) were discharged without OLT. The mortality rate was 63% in patients without OLT.ConclusionSevere epistaxis in patients with ESLD is (1) a diagnosis of exclusion that requires upper endoscopy to exclude severe UGIH; and (2) associated with a high mortality rate in patients not receiving OLT.