RESUMEN

Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which has a high mortality risk. The standard therapy for acute peptic ulcer bleeding combines medication administration and endoscopic therapies. Both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies have developed continuously in the past few decades. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) already reached a high efficacy in ulcer healing and have been widely used in the past few decades. Endoscopic hemostasis, which includes local epinephrine injection, heater probe coagulation, use of hemostatic clips, and/or band ligation, is highly effective with an overall hemostatic success rate of 85%-90%. However, 10%-20% of patients could not be cured by the current standard combination treatment. Recurrent ulcer bleeding, despite an initial successful hemostasis, is also a big problem for longer hospitalization stays, higher mortality, and higher complication rates, especially for malignant ulcer bleeding. How to manage all types of peptic ulcer bleeding and how to prevent early recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding remain unresolved clinical problems. Recently, several novel medications and endoscopic methods have been developed. Potassium competitive acid blockers have shown a stronger and longer acid suppression than PPI. Hemostatic powder spray and hemostatic gel emulsion are novel hemostatic weapons with emerging evidence, which are potential missing pieces of the puzzle. This literature review will go through the development of endoscopic hemostasis to the prospects of novel endoscopic treatments.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients has been well-characterized in liver cirrhosis but studies on lower GIB are limited. The clinical characteristics, management and outcomes in patients with and without liver cirrhosis was compared to determine the overall features of GIB in patients with liver cirrhosis compared with non-cirrhotics. METHODS: A retrospective study on cirrhotics hospitalized for GIB 2010-2021, matched with control group of non-cirrhotics (1:4) for upper vs. lower GIB. Patients with overt bleeding leading to hospitalization were included. RESULTS: Overall, 396 patients had cirrhosis, 267 (67%) men, median age 62, alcoholic etiology 177/396 (45%), median MELD 12 (range 6-32). Overall 102 cirrhotics had GIB, matched with 391 non-cirrhotics. Overall 87 (85%) cirrhotic patients had upper and 15% lower GIB. Compared to non-cirrhotics, the cause of GIB was more commonly acute variceal bleeding (AVB) (42% vs. 1%), hemorrhoids 40% vs. 6% (p = 0.002), less commonly gastric ulcer 13% vs. 31% (p < 0.001), duodenal ulcer 9% vs. 29% (p < 0.001), 5% of cirrhotics used NSAIDs vs. 26% of controls (p < 0.001). Rebleeding occurred in 14% of cirrhotics vs. 3% in controls (p < 0.001). Only one cirrhotic patient (1%) died from GIB vs. 0.8% of controls within 45 days. Overall mortality 45 days after hospitalization was 10% in cirrhotics vs. 5% in controls (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding from gastric and duodenal ulcers were less common in cirrhotics than in controls. Bleeding from hemorrhoids was more common in cirrhotics. Mortality due to GIB was low in both groups but overall mortality was significantly higher in cirrhotics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To investigate factors associated with risk for rebleeding and 30-day mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records and included all patients who had undergone prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, following an endoscopy-verified and treated peptic Sulcer bleeding, from 2016 to 2021. Data were collected from electronic health records and imaging from the embolization procedures. Primary outcomes were rebleeding and 30-day mortality. We performed logistical regression analyses for both outcomes with possible risk factors. Risk factors included: active bleeding; visible hemoclips; Rockall-score; anatomical variants; standardized embolization procedure; and number of endoscopies prior to embolization. RESULTS: We included 176 patients. Rebleeding occurred in 25% following embolization and 30-day mortality was 15%. Not undergoing a standardized embolization procedure increased the odds of both rebleeding (odds ratio 3.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.395-6.579) and 30-day overall mortality by 3.262 (1.252-8.497). More than one endoscopy was associated with increased odds of rebleeding (odds ratio 2.369, 95% CI 1.088-5.158). High Rockall-score increased the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 2.587, 95% CI 1.243-5.386). Active bleeding, visible hemoclips, and anatomical variants did not affect risk of rebleeding or 30-day mortality. Reasons for deviation from standard embolization procedure were anatomical variations, targeted treatment without embolizing the gastroduodenal artery, and technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation from the standard embolization procedure increased the risk of rebleeding and 30-day mortality, more than one endoscopy prior to embolization was associated with higher odds of rebleeding, and a high Rockall-score increased the risk of 30-day mortality. We suggest that patients with these risk factors are monitored closely following embolization. Early detection of rebleeding may allow for proper and early re-intervention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no clear consensus on whether medical treatment or endoscopic treatment should be used for peptic ulcer bleeding patients with adherent clot. The aim of this study is to investigate the hemostatic effects of medical treatment, single endoscopic treatment, and combination endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients with adherent clot. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed PUB patients with adherent clot who underwent endoscopic examination or treatment in our center from March 2014 to January 2023 and received intravenous administration of proton pump inhibitors. Patients were divided into medical treatment (MT) group, single endoscopic treatment (ST) group, and combined endoscopic treatment (CT) group. Subsequently, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to calculate the rebleeding rate. RESULTS: A total of 605 eligible patients were included in this study. After IPTW, the rebleeding rate in the MT group on days 3, 7, 14, and 30 were 13.3 (7.3), 14.2 (7.8), 14.5 (7.9), and 14.5 (7.9), respectively; the rebleeding rates in the ST group were 17.4 (5.1), 20.8 (6.1), 20.8 (6.1), and 20.8 (6.1), respectively; the rebleeding rates in the CT group were 0.4 (0.9), 1.7 (3.3), 2.3 (4.5), and 2.3 (4.5), respectively. Although the rebleeding rate in the medical treatment group was higher, there was no significant difference among the three groups on days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.132, 0.442, 0.552, and 0.552). CONCLUSIONS: Medical therapy has similar hemostatic efficacy with endoscopic treatment for PUB patients with adherent clot (FIIb ulcers). However, for patients with more risk factors and access to well-equipped endoscopy centers, endoscopic treatment may be considered. The choice of treatment approach should be based on the individual conditions of the patient, as well as other factors such as medical resources available.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency. Thorough initial assessment and appropriate resuscitation are essential to stabilise the patient. Risk scores provide an important tool to discriminate between lower- and higher-risk patients. Very low-risk patients can be safely discharged for out-patient management, while higher-risk patients can receive appropriate in-patient care. The Glasgow Blatchford Score, with a score of 0-1, performs best in the identification of very low-risk patients who will not require hospital based intervention or die, and is recommended by most guidelines to facilitate safe out-patient management. The performance of risk scores in the identification of specific adverse events to define high-risk patients is less accurate, with no individual score performing consistently well. Ongoing developments in the use of machine learning models and artificial intelligence in predicting poor outcomes in UGIB appear promising and will likely form the basis of dynamic risk assessment in the future.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Whether combination therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy in different Forrest classifications is not clear. This study aimed to compare hemostatic efficacy between epinephrine injection monotherapy (MT) and combination therapy (CT) based on different Forrest classifications. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients who underwent endoscopic epinephrine injections or epinephrine injections combined with a second therapy between March 2014 and June 2022 in our center, and the patients were divided into MT group or CT group. Subsequently, a propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was performed and rebleeding rates were calculated according to Forrest classifications via a stratified analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 605 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included, and after PSM, 173 patients in each of the CT and MT groups were included. For PUB patients with nonbleeding visible vessels (FIIa), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 8.8%, 17.5%, 19.3%, and 19.3% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 0%, 4.1%, 5.5%, and 5.5% in the CT group, respectively, with significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.015, P = 0.011, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). However, for PUB patients with oozing bleeding (FIb), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 14.9%, 16.2%, 17.6%, and 17.6% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 13.2%, 14.7%, 14.7%, and 16.2% in the CT group, respectively, with no significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.78, P = 0.804, P = 0.644 and P = 0.825). CONCLUSION: Combined therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy for PUB patients with visible blood vessel (FIIa) ulcers. However, epinephrine injection monotherapy is equally as effective as combined therapy for PUB patients with oozing blood (FIb) ulcers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are highly susceptible to peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to assess the influence of ESRD status on PUB hospitalizations in the United States (USA). Methods: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample to identify all adult PUB hospitalizations in the USA from 2007 to 2014, which were divided into two subgroups based on the presence or absence of ESRD. Hospitalization characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared. Furthermore, predictors of inpatient mortality for PUB hospitalizations with ESRD were identified. Results: Between 2007 and 2014, there were 351,965 PUB hospitalizations with ESRD compared to 2,037,037 non-ESRD PUB hospitalizations. PUB ESRD hospitalizations had a higher mean age (71.6 vs. 63.6 years, P < 0.001), and proportion of ethnic minorities i.e., Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians compared to the non-ESRD cohort. We also noted higher all-cause inpatient mortality (5.4% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001), rates of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (20.7% vs. 19.1%, P < 0.001), and mean length of stay (LOS) (8.2 vs. 6 days, P < 0.001) for PUB ESRD hospitalizations compared to the non-ESRD cohort. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, Whites with ESRD had higher odds of mortality from PUB compared to Blacks. Furthermore, the odds of inpatient mortality from PUB decreased by 0.6% for every 1-year increase in age for hospitalizations with ESRD. Compared to the 2011 - 2014 study period, the 2007 - 2010 period had 43.7% higher odds (odds ratio (OR): 0.696, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.645 - 0.751) of inpatient mortality for PUB hospitalizations with ESRD. Conclusions: PUB hospitalizations with ESRD had higher inpatient mortality, EGD utilization, and mean LOS compared to non-ESRD PUB hospitalizations.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on whether a gastroscopic biopsy is necessary during the emergency treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases such as gastric ulcer bleeding. In this study, we examined the clinical utility and safety of an emergency gastroscopic biopsy for the assessment of gastric ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We enrolled 150 patients with a single bleeding gastric ulcer after emergency gastroscopy (EG) from April 2020 to April 2022. The patients were randomly divided into the biopsy and no biopsy groups, and they were followed-up until June 2022 to examine whether recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding had occurred. RESULTS: Re-bleeding occurred in 15 out of 150 (10%) patients. We diagnosed malignancies in 17 (11.3%) patients and validated 14 (9.3%) of them during the initial gastroscopy procedure. Factors that could predict the occurrence of gastric ulcer re-bleeding with biopsy during EG included an absence of ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] = 0.395, confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.65, p ≤ .005), renal disease (OR = 1.74, CI: 0.77-1.59, p ≤ .005), and using warfarin or oral anticoagulants (OR = 11.953, CI: 3.494-39.460, p ≤ .005). No significant differences were observed in 60-day bleeding (p = .077) and the duration of hospitalization (p = .700) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing biopsy during EG did not exhibit an increased risk of re-bleeding compared with those who did not undergo a biopsy. An early biopsy facilitates an early pathologic diagnosis, early clinical intervention, safe discharge of low-risk patients, and improved outcomes in high-risk patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective To analyze the risk factors of bleeding in elderly patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and its correlation with Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection, and to provide a theoretical basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients with PUD bleeding. Methods A total of 418 elderly PUD patients admitted to our hospital from June 2019 to June 2020 were selected. The 13C-urea breath test was used to determine HP infection. PUD patients were divided into observation group (n=87, bleeding) and control group (n=331, no bleeding). Age, sex, ulcer number, ulcer location, ulcer stage, ulcer diameter and other clinical data were collected. Univariate analysis and logistic regression were used to analyze the risk factors of bleeding in elderly PUD patients. The Forrest classification was used to evaluate the severity of PUD bleeding patients. Pearson correlation analysis was performed between Forrest classification and Hp infection in elderly PUD bleeding patients. Results There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the course of disease, PUD history, NSAIDs application/ulcer number, ulcer diameter, ulcer location, ulcer stage, Hp infection and NSAIDs application (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the use of NSAIDs, active ulcer, Hp infection and ulcer diameter ≥2 cm were risk factors for bleeding in elderly patients with PUD (P<0.05). The Hp positive rate in Forrest I patients was significantly higher than that in Forrest II and Forrest III patients (P<0.05). The positive rate of Hp in Forrest II patients was significantly higher than that in Forrest III patients. Pearson correlation analysis showed that Hp infection was positively correlated with the severity of peptic ulcer bleeding in the elderly (r=0.512, P<0.05). Conclusion The risk of bleeding from PUD is higher in the elderly, especially in patients with active ulcer, Hp infection and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm. In the treatment process of PUD patients, the eradication therapy of Hp should be emphasized, which can reduce the risk of bleeding.

RESUMEN

Aim: The aim of this study was to identify clinical endoscopic indicators related to peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation and to analyze whether the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for gastric ulcer rebleeding. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included patients with gastric ulcer bleeding who were hospitalized at three medical centers in China from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. Ulcer rebleeding that occurred within 30 days of successful initial hemostasis was analyzed to determine whether this event was related to the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance or other mucosal inflammation-related factors. Results: We enrolled 1111 patients and determined that GBS-Rebleeding-ROC (P<0.001), age (P=0.01), use of NSAIDs (P=0.001), bile reflux (P<0.001), and Helicobacter pylori (P<0.001) are all risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance. Through multivariate analysis, we determined that severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance (P=0.002) was an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding within 30 days. Finally, we developed a risk assessment model using factors associated with mucosal inflammation that may be useful for early prediction of rebleeding. Conclusion: The risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance were identified. Severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although the current guidelines recommend endoscopic combination therapy, endoscopic epinephrine injection (EI) monotherapy is still a simple, common and effective modality for treating peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). However, the rebleeding risk after EI monotherapy is still high, and identifying rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy is unclear, which is highly important in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify risk factors and constructed a predictive nomogram related to rebleeding after EI monotherapy. METHODS: We consecutively and retrospectively analyzed 360 PUB patients who underwent EI monotherapy between March 2014 and July 2021 in our center. Then we identified independent risk factors associated with rebleeding after initial endoscopic EI monotherapy by multivariate logistic regression. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated based on the above predictors. RESULTS: Among all PUB patients enrolled, 51 (14.2%) had recurrent hemorrhage within 30 days after endoscopic EI monotherapy. After multivariate logistic regression, shock [odds ratio (OR) = 12.691, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.129-31.399, p < 0.001], Rockall score (OR = 1.877, 95% CI 1.250-2.820, p = 0.002), tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) (OR = 2.610, 95% CI 1.098-6.203, p = 0.030), prolonged prothrombin time (PT > 13 s) (OR = 2.387, 95% CI 1.019-5.588, p = 0.045) and gastric ulcer (OR = 2.258, 95% CI 1.003-5.084, p = 0.049) were associated with an increased risk of rebleeding after an initial EI monotherapy treatment. A nomogram incorporating these independent high-risk factors showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.876 (95% CI 0.817-0.934) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a predictive nomogram of rebleeding after EI monotherapy, which had excellent prediction accuracy. This predictive nomogram can be conveniently used to identify low-risk rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy, allowing for decision-making in a clinical setting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a typical medical emergency with significant morbidity and mortality. Peptic ulcer rebleeding often occurs within three days after emergent endoscopic hemostasis. Our study aims to develop a nomogram to predict rebleeding within three days after emergent endoscopic hemostasis for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 386 patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who underwent emergent endoscopic hemostasis between March 2014 and October 2018. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method was used to identify predictors. The model was displayed as a nomogram. Internal validation was carried out using bootstrapping. The model was evaluated using the calibration plot, decision-curve analyses, and clinical impact curve. RESULTS: Overall, 386 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled, with 48 patients developed rebleeding within three days after initial endoscopic hemostasis. Predictors contained in the nomogram included albumin, prothrombin time, shock, haematemesis/melena and Forrest classification. The model showed good discrimination and good calibration with a C-index of 0.854 (C-index: 0.830 via bootstrapping validation). Decision-curve analyses and clinical impact curve also demonstrated that it was clinically valuable. CONCLUSION: This study presents a nomogram that incorporates clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic features, effectively predicting rebleeding within three days after emergent endoscopic hemostasis and identifying high-risk rebleeding patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Trial registration This clinical trial has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04895904) approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The article is a scoping review of the literature on the use of decision support systems based on artificial neural networks in emergency surgery. The authors present modern literature data on the effectiveness of artificial neural networks for predicting, diagnosing and treating abdominal emergency conditions: acute appendicitis, acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastric or duodenal ulcer, acute intestinal obstruction, and strangulated hernia. The intelligent systems developed at present allow a surgeon in an emergency setting, not only to check his own diagnostic and prognostic assumptions, but also to use artificial intelligence in complex urgent clinical cases. The authors summarize the main limitations for the implementation of artificial neural networks in surgery and medicine in general. These limitations are the lack of transparency in the decision-making process; insufficient quality educational medical data; lack of qualified personnel; high cost of projects; and the complexity of secure storage of medical information data. The development and implementation of decision support systems based on artificial neural networks is a promising direction for improving the forecasting, diagnosis and treatment of emergency surgical diseases and their complications.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Although the first approach for peptic ulcer bleeding is endoscopic hemostasis, quick determination of a hemostatic strategy is important in patients with vitals indicating shock. However, the unsuccessful factors for endoscopic treatment have yet to be sufficiently examined. We aimed to investigate the factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in severe peptic ulcer bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unsuccessful factors were retrospectively investigated in 150 eligible patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for shock-presenting peptic ulcer bleeding at our critical care center between April 2007 and March 2021. RESULTS: There were 123 and 27 cases of successful and unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis, respectively. Causative diseases included gastric ulcer bleeding in 124 patients (82.7%) and duodenal ulcer bleeding in 26 patients (17.3%). Shock index (SI) (1.46 vs. 1.60) (p = .013), exposed blood vessel diameter (1.4 mm vs. 3.1 mm) (p < .001) identified on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), duodenal ulcer bleeding (p = .012), and Forrest classification Ia (p = .004) were extracted as independent factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis. In receiving operating curve analysis, when the cut-off value for the SI was set at 1.53, the sensitivity and specificity were 70.4% and 63.4%, respectively. When the cut-off value for the exposed blood vessel diameter was set at 1.9 mm, these were 88.9% and 83.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When these factors (SI ≥ 1.53, exposed blood vessel diameter ≥1.9 mm identified on CE-CT, duodenal ulcer bleeding, and Forrest Ia) are present in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding, non-endoscopic hemostasis, such as interventional radiology (IVR) and surgery, should be considered.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The gastrointestinal tract is a long tubular structure wherein any point in the mucosa along its entire length could be the source of a hemorrhage. Upper (esophagel and gastroduodenal) and lower (jejunum, ileum, and colon) gastrointestinal bleeding are common. Gastroduodenal and colonic bleeding are more frequent than bleeding from the small bowel, but nowadays the entire gastrointestinal tract can be explored endoscopically and bleeding lesions can be locally treated successfully to stop or prevent further bleeding. The extensive use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants drugs in cardiovascular patients is, at least in part, the cause of the increasing number of patients suffering from gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with these conditions are usually older and more fragile because of their comorbidities. The correct management of antithrombotic drugs in cases of gastrointestinal bleeding is essential for a successful outcome for patients. The influence of the microbiome in the pathogenesis of small bowel bleeding is an example of the new data that are emerging as potential therapeutic target for bleeding prevention. This text summarizes the latest research and advances in all forms of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (i.e., upper, small bowel and lower). Diagnosis is approached, and medical, endoscopic or antithrombotic management are discussed in the text in an accessible and comprehensible way.

RESUMEN

Post-endoscopic hemostasis treatment is not adequately addressed in high-risk patients on regular hemodialysis (HD) with emergency peptic ulcer bleeding. This study aimed to compare post-endoscopic high- versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for peptic ulcer bleeding in patients undergoing regular HD. This prospective study comprised 200 patients on regular hemodialysis having emergency peptic ulcer bleeding confirmed at endoscopy and managed with endoscopic hemostasis. Half of the patients received high-dose intensive regimen and the other half received the standard regimen. Patients who were suspected to have recurrent bleeding underwent a second endoscopy for bleeding control. The primary outcome measure was rate of recurrent bleeding during period of hospitalization that was detected through second endoscopy. Rebleeding occurred in 32 patients ; 15 in the High-Dose Cohort and 17 in the Low-Dose Control (p = 0.700). No significant differences between the two dose cohorts regarding the time of rebleeding (p = 0.243), endoscopic hemostasis mode (p = 1.000), and need for surgery (p = 0.306). The highdose regimen Inhospital mortality in high-dose group was 9.0% compared to 8.0% in the low-dose group (p = 0.800). Apart from the pre-hemostatic Forrest classification of ulcers, there were no significant differences between patients with re-bleeding ulcers (n=32) and those with non-rebleeding (n=168). Rebleeding was more common in class Ia, i.e. spurting bleeders (p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis followed by the standard low-dose PPI regimen of 40 mg daily IV boluses is safe and effective option for bleeding peptic ulcers in the high-risk patients under regular hemodialysis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization using hemostatic clips as the guidance in the patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic treatment failure. METHODS: From February 2009 to October 2018, 33 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who were treated with transcatheter arterial embolization after endoscopic treatment failure were included in the study. Clinical success rate, 30-d mortality rate and complication rate were observed. RESULTS: According to Forrest grading of ulcer bleeding on endoscopy, 8 patients (24.2%) were defined as Ⅰa, 14 patients (42.5%) Ⅰb, 4 patients (12.1%) Ⅱa, and 7 patients (21.2%) Ⅱb. There were 8 patients not given endoscopic treatment due to poor vision. In 25 patients who received endoscopic treatment, 7 patients did not achieve primary endoscopic hemostasis and 18 patients had re-bleeding despite successful primary hemostasis. The mean interval time from endoscopic treatment failure to transcatheter arterial embolization was (35.42±67.54) h. All patients underwent arterial angiography, and 18 patients with positive angiographic findings were treated with embolization. Among the 15 patients with negative angiographic findings, hemostatic clip could be observed fluoroscopically in 8 patients and used as guidance for embolization. Prophylactic embolization was performed in 4 out of 7 patients without visualization of clip fluoroscopically. The clinical success rates in negative angiographic findings patients with and without clip guidance were 75.0% and 28.6% respectively. The clinical success rate with positive angiographic findings was 66.7%. The overall clinical success rate and 30-d mortality rate were 60.0% and 20.0% respectively. No complication related to embolization was observed. CONCLUSION: The preliminary clinical study demonstrates that transcatheter arterial embolization with the guidance of clips is effective and safe for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic treatment failure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Guidelines recommend using prognostic scales for risk stratification in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It remains unclear whether risk scores offer greater accuracy than clinical evaluation. Objective: Compare the diagnostic accuracy of the endoscopist's judgment against different risk-scoring systems (Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, Baylor and the Cedars-Sinai scores) for predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Methods: Between February 2006 and April 2010 we prospectively recruited 401 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding; 225 received endoscopic treatment. The endoscopist recorded his/her subjective assessment ("endoscopist judgment") of the risk of rebleeding and death immediately after endoscopy for each patient. Independent evaluators calculated the different scores. Area under the receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for rebleeding and mortality. Results: The areas under ROC curve of the endoscopist's clinical judgment for rebleeding (0.67-0.75) and mortality (0.84-0.9) were similar or even superior to the different risk scores in both the whole group and in patients receiving endoscopic therapy. Conclusions: The accuracy of the currently available risk scores for predicting rebleeding and mortality in PUB patients was moderate and not superior to the endoscopist's judgment. More precise prognostic scales are needed.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Forrest classification is widely applied to guide endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding. Accordingly, practice guidelines suggest medical treatment only for ulcer with a Forrest IIc lesion because it has low rebleeding risk even without endoscopic therapy, ranging from 0 to 13%. However, the risk ranges widely and it is unclear who is at risk of rebleeding with such a lesion. This study assessed whether the Rockall score, which evaluates patients holistically, could indicate the risk of recurrent bleeding among patients with a Forrest IIc lesion at the second-look endoscopy. METHODS: Patients who had peptic ulcer bleeding with Ia-IIb lesions received endoscopic hemostasis at the primary endoscopy, and they were enrolled if their Ia-IIb lesions had been fading to IIc at the second-look endoscopy after 48- to 72-h intravenous proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion. Primary outcomes were rebleeding during the 4th-14th day and 4th-28th day after the first bleeding episode. RESULTS: The prospective cohort study enrolled 140 patients, who were divided into a Rockall scores ≥ 6 group or a Rockall scores < 6 group. The rebleeding rates in the Rockall scores ≥ 6 group and the Rockall scores < 6 group during the 4th-14th day and the 4th-28th day were 13/70 (18.6%) versus 2/70 (2.9%), p = 0.003 and 17/70 (24.3%) versus 3/70 (4.3%), p = 0.001, respectively, based on an intention-to-treat analysis and 5/62 (8.1%) versus 0/68 (0%), p = 0.023 and 6/59 (10.2%) versus 0/67 (0%), p = 0.009, respectively, based on a per-protocol analysis. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the Rockall scores ≥ 6 group had a significantly lower cumulative rebleeding-free proportion than the Rockall scores < 6 group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Combined Rockall scores ≥ 6 on arrival with a Forrest IIc lesion at the second-look endoscopy can identify patients at risk of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding following initial endoscopic and intravenous PPI treatment. Trial registration Trial registration identifier: NCT01591083.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips. Methods: For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07 € in the standard group vs 12,808.56 € in the over-the-scope clip group (p = 0.812) and 2084.98 € vs 1984.71 € respectively (p = 0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05 € vs 15,104.43 € and 4917.41 € vs 2340.46 € for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18 € for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment. Conclusions: Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Asunto(s)