It is recommended that patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. The role of endoscopy performed within time frames ...shorter than 24 hours has not been adequately defined.
To evaluate whether urgent endoscopy improves outcomes in patients predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death, we randomly assigned patients with overt signs of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow-Blatchford score of 12 or higher (scores range from 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of further bleeding or death) to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours (urgent-endoscopy group) or between 6 and 24 hours (early-endoscopy group) after gastroenterologic consultation. The primary end point was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization.
A total of 516 patients were enrolled. The 30-day mortality was 8.9% (23 of 258 patients) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 6.6% (17 of 258) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval CI, -2.3 to 6.9). Further bleeding within 30 days occurred in 28 patients (10.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 20 (7.8%) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.1). Ulcers with active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) with peptic ulcers in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the early-endoscopy group. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment was administered at initial endoscopy for 155 patients (60.1%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and for 125 (48.4%) in the early-endoscopy group.
In patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were at high risk for further bleeding or death, endoscopy performed within 6 hours after gastroenterologic consultation was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than endoscopy performed between 6 and 24 hours after consultation. (Funded by the Health and Medical Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01675856.).
AIM:To evaluate the incidence,surgery,mortality,and readmission of upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB)secondary to peptic ulcer disease(PUD).METHODS:Administrative databases identified all ...hospitalizations for UGIB secondary to PUD in Alberta,Canada from 2004 to 2010(n=7079)using the International Classification of Diseases Codes(ICD-10).A subset of the data was validated using endoscopy reports.Positive predictive value and sensitivity with 95%confidence intervals(CI)were calculated.Incidence of UGIB secondary to PUD was calculated.Logistic regression was used to evaluate surgery,in-hospital mortality,and 30-d readmission to hospital with recurrent UGIB secondary to PUD.Co-variants accounted for in our logistic regression model included:age,sex,area of residence(i.e.,urban vs rural),number of Charlson comorbidities,presence of perforated PUD,undergoing upper endoscopy,year of admission,and interventional radiological attempt at controlling bleeding.A subgroup analysis(n=6356)compared outcomes of patients with gastric ulcers to those with duodenal ulcers.Adjusted estimates are presented as odds ratios(OR)with95%CI.RESULTS:The positive predictive value and sensitivity of ICD-10 coding for UGIB secondary to PUD were85.2%(95%CI:80.2%-90.2%)and 77.1%(95%CI:69.1%-85.2%),respectively.The annual incidence between 2004 and 2010 ranged from 35.4 to 41.2 per100000.Overall risk of surgery,in-hospital mortality,and 30-d readmission to hospital for UGIB secondary to PUD were 4.3%,8.5%,and 4.7%,respectively.Interventional radiology to control bleeding was performed in 0.6%of patients and 76%of these patients avoided surgical intervention.Thirty-day readmission significantly increased from 3.1%in 2004 to 5.2%in 2010(OR=1.07;95%CI:1.01-1.14).Rural residents(OR rural vs urban:2.35;95%CI:1.83-3.01)and older individuals(OR≥65 vs<65:1.57;95%CI:1.21-2.04)were at higher odds of being readmitted to hospital.Patients with duodenal ulcers had higher odds of dying(OR=1.27;95%CI:1.05-1.53),requiring surgery(OR=1.73;95%CI:1.34-2.23),and being readmitted to hospital(OR=1.54;95%CI:1.19-1.99)when compared to gastric ulcers.CONCLUSION:UGIB secondary to PUD,particularly duodenal ulcers,was associated with significant morbidity and mortality.Early readmissions increased over time and occurred more commonly in rural areas.
Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal ...injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding.
To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs.
We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs.
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.
We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence).
This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.
There is no effective treatment for aspirin-induced small bowel ulcer bleeding. We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether misoprostol can heal small bowel ...ulcers in patients with small bowel bleeding who require continuous aspirin therapy.
We performed a prospective study of 84 aspirin users with small bowel bleeding who required continued aspirin therapy in Hong Kong and Japan. Patients with small bowel ulcers or multiple erosions, detected by capsule endoscopy, were randomly assigned to groups that received either misoprostol (200 μg, 4 times daily; n = 42) or placebo (n = 42) for 8 weeks. All patients continued taking aspirin (100 mg, once daily). The primary end point was complete ulcer healing at follow-up capsule endoscopy. Secondary end points included changes in hemoglobin level and number of ulcer/erosions from baseline.
Complete healing of small bowel ulcers was observed in 12 patients in the misoprostol group (28.6%; 95% CI, 14.9%–42.2%) and 4 patients in the placebo group (9.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%–18.4%), for a difference in proportion of 19.0% (95% CI, 2.8%–35.3%; P = .026). The misoprostol group had a significantly greater mean increase in hemoglobin than the placebo group (mean difference, 0.70 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.05–1.36; P = .035). The reduction in medium number of ulcers or erosions was significantly greater in the misoprostol group (from 6.5 range, 1–85 to 2 range, 0–25) than in the placebo group (from 7 range, 1–29 to 4 range, 0–19 (P = .005).
In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we found misoprostol to be superior to placebo in promoting healing of small bowel ulcers among aspirin users complicated by small bowel ulcer bleeding who require continuous aspirin therapy. However, use of misoprostol alone would provide only limited protection against aspirin on the small bowel. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01998776.
Display omitted
Background & Aims The purpose of this review is to evaluate the risks associated with long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), focusing on long-term use of PPIs for three common indications: ...gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) bleeding prophylaxis. Methods The recommendations outlined in this review are based on expert opinion and on relevant publications from PubMed, EMbase, and the Cochrane library (through July 2016). To identify relevant ongoing trials, we queried clinicaltrials.gov . To assess the quality of evidence, we used a modified approach based on the GRADE Working Group. The Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association has reviewed these recommendations. Best Practice Advice 1 : Patients with GERD and acid-related complications (ie, erosive esophagitis or peptic stricture) should take a PPI for short-term healing, maintenance of healing, and long-term symptom control. Best Practice Advice 2 : Patients with uncomplicated GERD who respond to short-term PPIs should subsequently attempt to stop or reduce them. Patients who cannot reduce PPIs should consider ambulatory esophageal pH/impedance monitoring before committing to lifelong PPIs to help distinguish GERD from a functional syndrome. The best candidates for this strategy may be patients with predominantly atypical symptoms or those who lack an obvious predisposition to GERD (eg, central obesity, large hiatal hernia). Best Practice Advice 3 : Patients with Barrett’s esophagus and symptomatic GERD should take a long-term PPI. Best Practice Advice 4 : Asymptomatic patients with Barrett’s esophagus should consider a long-term PPI. Best Practice Advice 5 : Patients at high risk for ulcer-related bleeding from NSAIDs should take a PPI if they continue to take NSAIDs. Best Practice Advice 6 : The dose of long-term PPIs should be periodically reevaluated so that the lowest effective PPI dose can be prescribed to manage the condition. Best Practice Advice 7 : Long-term PPI users should not routinely use probiotics to prevent infection. Best Practice Advice 8 : Long-term PPI users should not routinely raise their intake of calcium, vitamin B12, or magnesium beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). Best Practice Advice 9 : Long-term PPI users should not routinely screen or monitor bone mineral density, serum creatinine, magnesium, or vitamin B12. Best Practice Advice 10 : Specific PPI formulations should not be selected based on potential risks.
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient ...outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Summary Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency worldwide, a major cause of which are bleeding peptic ulcers. Endoscopic treatment and acid suppression with proton-pump ...inhibitors are cornerstones in the management of the disease, and both treatments have been shown to reduce mortality. The role of emergency surgery continues to diminish. In specialised centres, radiological intervention is increasingly used in patients with severe and recurrent bleeding who do not respond to endoscopic treatment. Despite these advances, mortality from the disorder has remained at around 10%. The disease often occurs in elderly patients with frequent comorbidities who use antiplatelet agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and anticoagulants. The management of such patients, especially those at high cardiothrombotic risk who are on anticoagulants, is a challenge for clinicians. We summarise the published scientific literature about the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, identify directions for future clinical research, and suggest how mortality can be reduced.
PDF
