Endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
- 721 Downloads
Peptic ulcer represents the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this review is to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy.
Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, and CINAHL. We selected randomized clinical trials that assessed contemporary endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The outcomes evaluated were: initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, and mortality. The possibility of publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots. An additional analysis was made, including only the higher-quality trials.
Twenty-eight trials involving 2988 patients were evaluated. Injection therapy alone was inferior to injection therapy with hemoclip and with thermal coagulation when evaluating rebleeding and the need for emergency surgery. Hemoclip was superior to injection therapy in terms of rebleeding; there were no statistically significant differences between hemoclip alone and hemoclip with injection therapy. There was considerable heterogeneity in the comparisons between hemoclip and thermal coagulation. There were no statistically significant differences between thermal coagulation and injection therapy, though their combination was superior, in terms of rebleeding, to thermal coagulation alone.
Injection therapy should not be used alone. Hemoclip is superior to injection therapy, and combining hemoclip with an injectate does not improve hemostatic efficacy above hemoclip alone. Thermal coagulation has similar efficacy as injection therapy; combining these appears to be superior to thermal coagulation alone. Therefore, we recommend the application of hemoclips or the combined use of injection therapy with thermal coagulation for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.
KeywordsNon-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding Gastrointestinal hemorrhage Peptic ulcer Endoscopy Endoscopic hemostasis
Compliance with ethical standards
Drs Felipe Baracat, Eduardo Moura, Wanderley Bernardo, Leonardo Zorron Pu, Ernesto Mendonça, Diogo Moura, Renato Baracat, and Edson Ide have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclosure.
- 4.Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC (1995) Incidence of and mortality from acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. Steering Committee and members of the National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage. BMJ 311:222–226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Gralnek M, Jensen DM, Gorbein J, Kovacs TO, Jutabha R, Freeman ML, King J, Jensen ME, Cheng S, Machicado GA, Smith JA, Randall GM, Sue M (1998) Clinical and economic outcomes of individuals with severe peptic ulcer hemorrhage and nonbleeding visible vessel: an analysis of two prospective clinical trials. Am J Gastroenterol 93:2047–2053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sung JJ, Luo D, Wu JC, Ching JY, Chan FK, Lau JY, Mack S, Ducharme R, Okolo P, Canto M, Kalloo A, Giday SA (2011) Early clinical experience of the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray in achieving hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Endoscopy 43:291–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Smith LA, Stanley AJ, Bergman JJ, Kiesslich R, Hoffman A, Tjwa ET, Kuipers EJ, von Holstein CS, Oberg S, Brullet E, Schmidt PN, Igbal T, Mangiavillano B, Masci E, Prat F, Morris AJ (2014) Hemospray Application in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; results of the Survey to Evaluate the Application of Hemospray in the Luminal Tract. J Clin Gastroenterol 48:89–92Google Scholar
- 19.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions : explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.PROSPERO Center for Revews and Dissemination, University of York. “Guidance notes for registering a systematic review with PROSPERO”. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/
- 22.Consolidated Standards of reporting Trials – CONSORT; http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/
- 24.Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Headington, Oxford. Critically Appraised Topics (CAT). http://www.cebm.net/catmaker-ebm-calculators/
- 25.(RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane CollaborationsGoogle Scholar
- 28.Jubicic L, Supanc V, Vrsalovic M (2004) Efficacy of endoscopic clipping for actively bleeding peptic ulcer: comparison with polidocanol injection therapy. Hepatogastroenterology 51(56):408–412Google Scholar
- 29.Shimoda R, Iwakiri R, Sakata H, Ogata S, Kikkawa A, Ootani H, Oda K, Ootani A, Tsunada S, Fujimoto K (2003) Evaluation of endoscopic hemostasis with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcer: comparison with endoscopic injection of absolute ethanol in a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 98(10):2198–2202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Chou YC, Hsu PI, Lai KH, Lo CC, Chan HH, Lin CP, Chen WC, Shie CB, Wang EM, Chou NH, Chen W, Lo GH (2003) A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip placement and distilled water injection for treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc 57(3):324–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Chung IK, Ham JS, Kim HS, Park SH, Lee MH, Kim SJ (1999) Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection and a combination of the two for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc 49(1):13–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Lo CC, Hsu PI, Lo GH, Lin CK, Chan HH, Tsai WL, Chen WC, Wu CJ, Yu HC, Cheng JS, Lai KH (2006) Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high-risk bleeding ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc 63(6):767–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Arima S, Sakata Y, Ogata S, Tominaga N, Tsuruoka N, Mannen K, Shiraishi R, Shimoda R, Tsunada S, Sakata H, Iwakiri R, Fujimoto K (2010) Evaluation of hemostasis with soft coagulation using endoscopic hemostatic forceps in comparison with metallic hemoclips for bleeding gastric ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial. J Gastroenterol 45(5):501–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Taghavi SA, Soleimani SM, Hosseini-Asl SM, Eshraghian A, Eghbali H, Dehghani SM, Ahmadpour B, Saberifiroozi M (2009) Adrenaline injection plus argon plasma coagulation versus adrenaline injection plus hemoclips for treating high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial. Can J Gastroenterol 23(10):699–704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Gralnek IM, Jensen DM, Kovacs TO, Jutabha R, Jensen ME, Cheng S, Gornbein J, Freeman ML, Machicado GA, Smith J, Sue M, Kominski G (1997) An economic analysis of patients with active arterial peptic ulcer hemorrhage treated with endoscopic heater probe, injection sclerosis, or surgery in a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 46(2):105–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Llach J, Bordas JM, Salmerón JM, Panés J, García-Pagán JC, Feu F, Navasa M, Mondelo F, Piqué JM, Mas A, Terés J, Rodés J (1996) A prospective randomized trial of heater probe thermocoagulation versus injection therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage. Gastrointest Endosc 43:117–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, The PRISMA StatementGoogle Scholar