Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis Research Articles

A Noninferiority Trial Comparing 2 Days vs 5 Days of Terlipressin and Ceftriaxone in Terms of 5-Day Rebleeding for Patients With Acute Gastroesophageal Variceal Hemorrhage.

This trial was to shorten the duration of both vasoconstrictors and prophylactic antibiotics to only 2 days in the therapy of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage. After successful endoscopic hemostasis of gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, eligible patients were randomized to receive terlipressin infusion 1 mg per 6 hours and ceftriaxone 1 g daily for 5 days (group A) or a similar regimen for 2 days (group B). Primary end points were very early rebleeding at 5 days, and secondary end points included 48-hour hemostasis, 42-day rebleeding, and hospitalization days. Group A comprised 48 patients, and group B comprised 52 patients. Both groups were comparable in the severity of liver disease. Forty-eight-hour initial hemostasis was 95.8% in group A and 100% in group B ( P = 0.13). Very early rebleeding between 3 and 5 days occurred in 1 patient (2.1%) in group A and 2 patients (3.8%) in group B ( P = 0.60). The difference was 1.8% and the 95% confidence interval was -1.31% to 2.08%, which demonstrated noninferiority. Forty-two-day rebleeding occurred in 5 patients (10.4%) in group A and 4 patients (7.7%) in group B ( P = 0.63). The median hospitalization days were 8.5 ± 3.8 days in group A vs 5.6 ± 2.6 days in group B ( P < 0.001). After successful endoscopic hemostasis of acute variceal bleeding, combination of 2-day terlipressin infusion and ceftriaxone therapy was not inferior to the 5-day regimen in terms of very early rebleeding, with the advantage of shortening hospitalization stay.

Comparison of Vonoprazan versus Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitor for Prevention of High-Risk Peptic Ulcers Rebleeding after Successful Endoscopic Hemostasis: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial

High-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has been recommended to prevent rebleeding of high-risk peptic ulcer (PU) after hemostasis. Vonoprazan has been proven to be noninferior to PPIs in various acid-related diseases. This study aims to compare the efficacy of vonoprazan versus PPI for preventing high-risk PU rebleeding after hemostasis. A multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted in 6 centers. Pre-endoscopic and endoscopic therapy were performed according to standard protocol. After successful hemostasis, patients with high-risk PU bleeding (Forrest class Ia/Ib, IIa/IIb) were randomized into 1:1 to receive vonoprazan (20-mg BID for 3 days, then 20-mg OD for 28 days) or high-dose PPI (pantoprazole intravenous infusion 8 mg/hour for 3 days, then omeprazole 20-mg BID for 28 days). The primary outcome was a 30-day rebleeding rate. Secondary outcomes included 3-and 7-day rebleeding rate, all-cause and bleeding-related mortality, rate of rescue therapy, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and safety. Of 194 patients, baseline characteristics, severity of bleeding, and stage of ulcers were comparable among the two groups. The 30-day rebleeding rate in vonoprazan and PPI groups were 7.1% (7/98) and 10.4% (10/96), respectively; noninferiority (within 10% margin) of vonoprazan to PPI was confirmed (%risk difference= -3.3; 95% confidence interval = -11.2, 4.7; P<0.001). The 3-day and 7-day rebleeding rates in vonoprazan group remained noninferior to PPI (P< 0.001 by Farrington and Manning test). All secondary outcomes were also comparable between the two groups. In patients with high-risk PU bleeding, the efficacy of vonoprazan in preventing 30-day rebleeding was noninferior to intravenous PPI.

Ulcer Bleeding in the United States: Epidemiology, Treatment Success, and Resource Utilization.

Peptic ulcer disease is the most frequent cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We sought to establish the epidemiology and hemostasis success rate of the different treatment modalities in this setting. Retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample. Non-elective adult admissions with a principal diagnosis of ulcer bleeding were included. The primary outcome was endoscopic, radiologic and surgical hemostasis success rate. Secondary outcomes were patients' demographics, in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. On subgroup analysis, gastric and duodenal ulcers were studied separately. Confounders were adjusted for using multivariate regression analysis. A total of 136,425 admissions (55% gastric and 45% duodenal ulcers) were included. The mean patient age was 67years. The majority of patients were males, Caucasians, of lower income and high comorbidity burden. The endoscopic, radiological and surgical therapy and hemostasis success rates were 33.6, 1.4, 0.1, and 95.1%, 89.1 and 66.7%, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.9% overall, but 2.4% after successful and 11.1% after failed endoscopic hemostasis, respectively. Duodenal ulcers were associated with lower adjusted odds of successful endoscopic hemostasis, but higher odds of early and multiple endoscopies, endoscopic therapy, overall and successful radiological therapy, in-hospital mortality, longer length of stay and higher total hospitalization charges and costs. The ulcer bleeding endoscopic hemostasis success rate is 95.1%. Rescue therapy is associated with lower hemostasis success and more than a ten-fold increase in mortality rate. Duodenal ulcers are associated with worse treatment outcomes and higher resource utilization compared with gastric ulcers.

Risk factors for difficult endoscopic hemostasis for colonic diverticular bleeding and efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial embolization.

This study aimed to investigate the risk factors for difficult endoscopic hemostasis in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for colonic diverticular bleeding. This study included 208 patients with colorectal diverticular hemorrhage. The non-interventional radiotherapy group consisted of patients who underwent successful spontaneous hemostasis (n = 131) or endoscopic hemostasis (n = 56), whereas the interventional radiotherapy group consisted of patients who underwent TAE (n = 21). Patient clinical characteristics were compared to identify independent risk factors for the interventional radiotherapy group. Furthermore, the hemostasis success rate, rebleeding rate, complications, and recurrence-free survival were compared between patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis and those who underwent TAE. Bleeding from the right colon (odds ratio [OR]: 7.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-38.8; P = .0113) and systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg (OR: 0.108; 95% CI: 0.0189-0.62; P = .0126) were identified as independent risk factors for the interventional radiology group. The hemostasis success rate (P = 1.00), early rebleeding rate (within 30 days) (P = .736), late rebleeding rate (P = 1.00), and recurrence-free survival rate (P = .717) were not significantly different between the patients who underwent TAE and those who underwent endoscopic hemostasis. Patients in the TAE group experienced more complications than those in the endoscopic hemostasis group (P < .001). Complications included mild intestinal ischemia (19.0%) and perforation requiring surgery (4.8%). Patients who required interventional radiotherapy were more likely to bleed from the right colon and presented with a systolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg. TAE is an effective treatment for patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage that is refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. However, complications must be monitored carefully.

Successful small-diameter endoscopic hemostasis using a self-assembling peptide matrix for Mallory-Weiss syndrome in a patient with a severe esophageal stricture

Successful small-diameter endoscopic hemostasis using a self-assembling peptide matrix for Mallory-Weiss syndrome in a patient with a severe esophageal stricture

Use of specific antidotes in DOAC-associated severe gastrointestinal bleeding - an expert consensus - Antagonozation of direct oral anticoagulants in gastrointestinal hemorrhages

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common complications associated with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). Clear algorithms exist for the emergency measures in (suspected) GI bleeding, including assessing the medication history regarding anti-platelet drugs and anticoagulants as well as simple coagulation tests during pre-endoscopic management. Platelet transfusions, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), or prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) are commonly used for optimizing the coagulation status. For severe bleeding under the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, idarucizumab is available, and for bleeding under the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa is available as specific antidotes for DOAC antagonization. These antidotes represent emergency drugs that are typically used only after performing guideline-compliant multimodal measures including emergency endoscopy. Antagonization of oral anticoagulants should be considered for severe gastrointestinal bleeding in the following situations: (1) refractory hemorrhagic shock, (2) endoscopically unstoppable bleeding, or (3) nonavoidable delays until emergency endoscopy for life-threatening bleeding. After successful (endoscopic) hemostasis, anticoagulation (DOACs, vitamin K antagonist, heparin) should be resumed timely (i.e. usually within a week), taking into account individual bleeding and thromboembolic risk.

Successful hemostasis of multiple parapapillary diverticular hemorrhage by clip-with-rubber-band traction technique at the descending duodenum.

Various traction devices and techniques have been used to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection by creating a clear field of vision and allowing dissections to be performed more quickly and safely [1]. Here, we report successful endoscopic hemostasis of parapapillary diverticular hemorrhage by the clip-with-rubber-band traction technique at the descending duodenum.

Use of the NOBLADS Score to Predict Endoscopic Treatment in Patients with Colonic Diverticular Bleeding by Age Stratification.

Objective A high NOBLADS score reflecting the severity of lower gastrointestinal bleeding contributes to the identification of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) in colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). The burden of colonoscopy is particularly high in elderly patients; therefore, we investigated the utility of the NOBLADS score for managing CDB by age stratification. The NOBLADS score performance in SRH prediction was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic calculation and a multiple logistic regression model. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent initial colonoscopy with CDB between April 2008 and December 2019 were divided into a young group (<65 years old) and an elderly group (≥65 years old). We further categorized patients according to colonoscopy findings as SRH-positive, with successful endoscopic hemostasis performance, and SRH-negative, with suspected CDB. The main outcome measure was successful SRH identification. Results Four-hundred and seventeen CDB patients were included, of whom 250 (60.0%) were elderly. There were 72 (43.1%) SRH-positive patients in the young group and 94 (37.6%) in the elderly group. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the NOBLADS score predicting SRH identification were 0.76, 0.71, and 0.81 for all ages, young patients, and elderly patients, respectively. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that SRH identification was significantly associated with NOBLADS scores in both groups. Eighty-one patients (32.4%) scored ≥4 in the elderly group, and 60 of those were SRH-positive (74.1%). All 27 patients (10.8%) who scored ≥4 with extravasation on computed tomography were found to have SRH. Conclusion The NOBLADS score is useful for predicting SRH identification, especially in elderly patients.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Peptic ulcer disease and H. pylori gastritis: key advances in clinical management

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) gastritis and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) intake are the most important risk factors for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and ulcer bleeding. H. pylori infection was shown to increase the risk of ulcer bleeding in patients with PUD who are taking NSAID, aspirin, or another antiplatelet drug. H. pylori-positive patients on combined platelet aggregation inhibition are at the highest risk of bleeding. Evidence-based interdisciplinary treatment recommendations for the safe use of NSAID have been released. For patients with a moderate risk of PUD, the combination of NSAID and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or a monotherapy with a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor is recommended, whereas patients with a high risk of bleeding should receive a combination of a selective COX-2 inhibitor and a PPI. According to a recent randomized trial, hemodynamically stable patients with signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and an increased risk of death (Glasgow-Blatchford Score ≥ 12) undergoing endoscopy 6-24 after consultation do not have any disadvantage in terms of 30-day mortality compared to patients receiving endoscopy within 6 hours. After successful endoscopic hemostasis, additional prophylactic angiographic embolization does not reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding. Successful H. pylori eradication reduces the risk of developing gastric cancer (GC) in first-degree relatives of patients with GC by 73 %. In patients with successful endoscopic treatment of early GC, H. pylori testing with subsequent eradication also halves the rate of metachronous GC. Clarithromycin-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication shows a decreasing effectiveness due to increasing antibiotic resistance, especially against macrolides. Accordingly, bismuth-containing quadruple therapy is widely recommended as the standard empiric first-line therapy.

Urgent Endoscopy Improves Hemostasis in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Biliary-pancreatic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a lethal complication of biliary-pancreatic surgery (BPS). The role of endoscopic intervention has not been fully defined in such a critical condition. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis in a retrospective cohort. Consecutive patients with acute UGIB after BPS who received interventional endoscopy between January 2007 and August 2020 were included in this study. The clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed to screen for predictive factors significantly associated with successful hemostasis. Among 37,772 patients who underwent BPS, 26 patients (0.069%) developed acute UGIB. The sites and causes of hemorrhage were as follows: gastroenteric anastomoe (n=17), gastric stump (n=2), jejunal anastomose (n=1), duodenal bulb ulcer (n=2), pancreatojejunal anastomosis hemorrhage (n=1), cholangiojejunal anastomose (n=1), gastroenteric anastomose and gastric stump hemorrhage (n=1), and Dieulafoy lesion (n=1). Successful endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in 19 (73.1%) of the 26 UGIB patients. In the 7 patients who failed endotherapy, 1 patient received a successful radiologic intervention, 6 patients underwent reoperation and achieved hemostasis in 4, and the other 2 patients died after reoperation. Logistic regression analysis showed that presentation-to-endoscopy time (≤12 h) was the only independent predictive factor associated with successful endoscopic hemostasis. Endoscopic hemostasis is relatively safe and effective in controlling UIGB after BPS. Prompt intervention (≤12 h) could improve the success rate of endoscopic hemostasis.

Successful endoscopic hemostasis compared to transarterial embolization in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding.

Transarterial embolization (TAE) is performed in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding after difficult endoscopic hemostasis or rebleeding. A total of 375 patients with hematochezia at our hospital from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Firstly, we compared the group in which hemostasis was achieved by endoscopy alone with the group that eventually underwent TAE. Secondly, we compared the group in which hemostasis was achieved by endoscopy alone, with the group switched to TAE after endoscopic hemostasis failed. The group that eventually underwent TAE had a higher shock index and lower Alb and PT% than the endoscopic hemostasis group. The shock index was correlated with Alb and PT%. When the cut-off value for the shock index was defined as more than 0.740, an OR of 9.500, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 40.0%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.4%, and an accuracy of 80.3% were obtained for predicting a switch to TAE treatment. The greatest risk for TAE was the presence of shock and extravasation on contrast-enhanced CT. A switch to TAE treatment was likely when the shock index was more than 0.740. TAE should be considered in cases with a high shock index and showing extravasation on contrast-enhanced CT.

Superiority of urgent vs early endoscopic hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding with high-risk stigmata.

BackgroundGuidelines recommend that all patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) undergo endoscopy within 24 h. It is unclear whether a subgroup may benefit from an urgent intervention. We aimed to evaluate the influence of endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy on mortality in UGIB patients with high-risk stigmata (HRS).MethodsConsecutive patients with suspected UGIB were enrolled in three Japanese hospitals with a policy to perform endoscopy within 24 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopy timing (urgent, ≤6 h; early, >6 h) were evaluated in a regression model adjusting for age, systolic pressure, heart rate, hemoglobin, creatinine, and variceal bleeding in multivariate analysis. A propensity score of 1:1 matched sensitivity analysis was also performed.ResultsHRS were present in 886 of 1966 patients, and 35 of 886 (3.95%) patients perished. Median urgent-endoscopy time (n = 769) was 3.0 h (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0–4.0 h) and early endoscopy (n = 117) was 12.0 h (IQR, 8.5–19.0 h). Successful endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy were significantly associated with reduced mortality in multivariable analysis (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.52; P = 0.0006, and OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16–0.87; P = 0.023, respectively). In a propensity-score-matched analysis of 115 pairs, adjusted comparisons showed significantly lower mortality of urgent vs early endoscopy (2.61% vs 7.83%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsA subgroup of UGIB patients, namely those harboring HRS, may benefit from endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy rather than early endoscopy in reducing mortality. Implementing triage scores that predict the presence of such lesions is important.

Factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding

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.

Safety and Efficacy of the Noncessation Method of Antithrombotic Agents after Emergency Endoscopic Hemostasis in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Multicenter Pilot Study.

Background and Aims The present study aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of the noncessation method of antithrombotic agents after emergency endoscopic hemostasis in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Methods In this multicenter, prospective, pilot study, we performed emergency endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB in patients taking antithrombotic agents and resumed the medications without a cessation period (group A). The clinical characteristics, types of antithrombotic agents, UGIB etiology, treatment outcome, and adverse events were evaluated. We used propensity score matching to compare treatment outcomes and adverse events with our previous cohort (group B) in whom antithrombotic agents were transiently discontinued after emergency endoscopic hemostasis. Results Forty-three consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin and direct oral anticoagulants; 11 patients (25.6%) were taking multiple antithrombotics. Peptic ulcers were the main cause of bleeding (95.4%). Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all patients and the incidence of rebleeding within a month was 7.0%. Propensity score matching created 40 matched pairs. Endoscopic hemostasis was performed by soft coagulation significantly more frequently in group A than in group B (97.5% versus 60.0%, P < 0.001). Neither the rebleeding rate within a month nor thromboembolic event rate was different between the two groups. However, the mean duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in group A than in group B (8.6 ± 5.2 d versus 14.4 ± 7.1 d, P < 0.001). Conclusions Antithrombotic agents possibly can be continued after successful emergency endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB.

Study on the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole in the management of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

This retrospective study investigated the preventive effect of intravenous esomeprazole (IVEO) in the prevention of nonvarices upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NUGIB).This study enrolled 130 patients with NUGIB and all of them underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis, of which 65 cases received routine management and IVEO (Group A) and the other 65 cases received routine management alone (Group B). The primary outcome (recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour, 7-day, and 30-day), and secondary outcomes ((all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, blood transfused, hospital stay (day), and incidence of adverse events)) were compared between 2 groups.Patients in the group A showed lower recurrent bleeding rate within 72-hour(P < .05), 7-day (P < .05), and 30-day (P < .05), than that of patients in the group B. However, no significant differences were identified in all-cause mortality(P = .26), bleeding-related mortality (P = .57), blood transfused (P = .33), and hospital stay (P = .74) between 2 groups. In addition, both groups had similar safety profile.This study found that routine management and IVEO was superior to the routine management alone for preventing the recurrent bleeding rate after successful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with NUGIB.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Transarterial Embolization for High-Risk Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

The present systematic review determined the role of transarterial embolization (TAE) as a prophylactic treatment in bleeding peptic ulcers after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched from inception until July 2019 for studies that included patients deemed high-risk based on Forrest Classification, Rockall score ≥ 5, or endoscopic evaluation in addition to those who underwent prophylactic TAE after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. Meta-analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent endoscopic therapy (ET) and TAE with those who underwent ET alone. The primary outcomes measured included rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures evaluated length of hospitalization, technical success rates, and complications associated with TAE. Of 916 publications, 5 were eligible for inclusion; 310 patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding underwent prophylactic TAE, and 255 were compared against a control group of 580 patients that underwent standard treatment with ET alone. Patients who underwent ET with TAE had lower 30-day rebleeding rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–0.85; P = .02; I2 = 50%). The ET with TAE group had a lower 30-day mortality rate (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10–0.83; P = .02; I2 = 58%). There was no difference in pooled reintervention rates (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43–1.08; P = .10; I2 = 0%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference, −0.32; 95% CI, −1.88 to 1.24; P = .69; I2 = 0%). Technical success rate of prophylactic TAE was 90.5% (95% CI, 83.09–97.98; I2 = 75.9%). Pooled proportion of overall complication rate was 0.18% (95% CI, 0.00–1.28; I2 = 0%). Prophylactic TAE has lower rebleeding and mortality with a good success rate and low complications. Prophylactic TAE after primary ET may be recommended for selected patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers; however, further studies should be performed to establish this as a routine tool in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

Successful endoscopic hemostasis with Over-The-Scope Clip for persistent or perforated duodenal ulcer hemorrhaging: Two cases report

Successful endoscopic hemostasis with Over-The-Scope Clip for persistent or perforated duodenal ulcer hemorrhaging: Two cases report

Tu1516 SUCCESSFUL RESECTION OF GRADE 1 DUODENAL NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOURS USING ENDOSCOPIC TECHNIQUES IN TWO CANADIAN HOSPITALS.

Given the rarity of duodenal neuroendocrine tumours (dNETs), limited guidelines exist for resection of well-differentiated, ≤10 mm dNETS. As incidence rises, alternatives to surgery are valuable. We present 9 cases of endoscopic dNET resections and a literature review. To demonstrate efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for dNETs ≤10 mm at 2 Canadian hospitals. We retrospectively analyzed data on 7 patients that had endoscopic dNET resection from 2013-2018. Endoscopic resection occurred if dNETs were ≤10 mm in diameter, did not extend to the muscularis propria and lymphovascular invasion was absent. WHO 2017 classification was used. All patients had biopsies and 5 (71%) had EUS prior to resection; 4 females and 3 males underwent resection of 9 dNETs; 2 via cap-assisted snare polypectomy; 4 with cap-assisted band mucosectomy; and 2 over-the-scope clip-assisted resection. The median size was 10 mm (4-11); 6 (67%) dNETS were found in the duodenal bulb, 2 at the D1/D2 junction and 1 in D2 alone. The median age was 68.5 (50-79) years. All dNETs were submucosal and well-differentiated. The dNETs were resected en bloc, but 3 did not have clear margins. Two procedures were complicated by duodenal perforation; 1 requiring surgery and 18 days in hospital. One case was complicated by bleeding with successful endoscopic hemostasis. The majority (75%) of resections were day procedures. Patients were followed for 6-12 months with an EGD or chromogranin A. None of the patients had endoscopic residual disease, but 1 patient required a second procedure to remove a dNET left in situ following the initial resection of 2 dNETs 12 months earlier. In our literature review of 178 patients, the majority of dNETs were resected by EMR 81% (150/185) versus ESD. Patients were slightly younger with a mean age of 63.28, and most dNETs (46%) were found in the duodenal bulb. Complications included intraoperative bleeding, perforation and death in 17 (9.55%), 9 (5.06%) and 1 (0.06%) patient(s) respectively. The rate of recurrence was 4/178 (2.25%) at a mean follow up of 26.1 months. Well-differentiated dNETs ≤10 mm in diameter can be successfully resected endoscopically. Complications are rare and can often be managed intraoperatively with minimal hospitalization.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Optimal Timing of Feeding After Endoscopic Hemostasis in Patients With Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial (CRIS KCT0001019).

The optimal duration of fasting after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding has not yet been determined. We investigated the appropriate timing of feeding after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. This study was a randomized, single center, noninferiority trial. Between February 2014 and March 2019, consecutive patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were randomized to resume feeding either 24 or 48 hours after successful endoscopic hemostasis. A total of 209 eligible patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 200 in the per-protocol (PP) analysis. The primary outcome measure was recurrent bleeding within 7 days of hemostasis. Noninferiority testing was performed in the PP population, and the noninferiority margin was set at 10%. Secondary outcomes included 30-day rebleeding and mortality, transfusion requirements, and length of hospital stay. Recurrent bleeding rates at 7 days were 7.9% in the 24-hour group and 4.0% in the 48-hour group in the PP analysis; tests for noninferiority did not reach statistical significance (difference: 3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.7 to 10.5, P value for noninferiority = 0.034). The recurrent bleeding rates within 30 days were 10.9% and 4.0% in the 24- and 48-hour groups (difference: 6.9%, 95% CI: -0.5 to 14.2), and the 30-day mortality rates were 5.9% and 14.1%, respectively (difference: -8.2%, 95% CI: -16.5 to 0.1) in the PP analysis. The transfusion requirement and the length of hospital stay were similar between the 2 groups. Early refeeding at 24 hours after endoscopic hemostasis is not noninferior to later refeeding at 48 hours for rebleeding in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. Our results do not allow a recommendation of refeeding at 24 hours, rather than later refeeding in this population.