Intravenous iron supplementation after liver surgery: Impact on anemia, iron, and hepcidin levels-a randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND Anemia is a recognized risk factor for perioperative related morbidity and mortality and is frequently reported in liver surgeries with an estimated incidence of 32%. We aim to assess the impact of intravenous iron administration in the immediate postoperative period on anemia and iron status as well as to determine the kinetics of hepcidin after liver surgery. METHODS The HepciFer trial, a randomized controlled trial, included 50 patients undergoing liver surgery. In accordance with the randomization process, patients received either ferric carboxymaltose (15 mg/kg, maximum 1 g) or placebo 4 hours after surgery. RESULTS The mean hemoglobin level, 7 days after surgery, did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (11.1 ± 1.8 g/dL and 10.4 ± 1.6 g/dL, respectively) with a mean difference of +0.7 g/dL ([95% confidence interval, -0.3 to +1.7], P = .173). Within patients receiving intravenous iron supplementation, none presented biological signs of functional iron deficiency. Hepcidin levels remained significantly higher during the observation period in the intervention group. Inflammatory biomarkers, red blood cells transfusion rate and hospital duration of stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSION Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose administration did not result in a significant increase of hemoglobin levels 7 days after surgery. However, this study suggests that intravenous iron supplementation in the immediate postoperative settings prevents functional iron deficiency. Intravenous iron supplementation overcame the hepcidin-mediated blockade of iron absorption and should be considered as the preferred route of administration in the postoperative period.
Fibrin Sealant for Prevention of Bile Leakage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Incision: Outcome of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A. 2021
Background: There are several methods used to extract common bile duct (CBD) stones encountered during cholecystectomy. Intraoperative cholangiotomy, cholangioscopy, and laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) are techniques that allow removal of stones from the CBD during the index procedure. However, bile leakage following CBD exploration is a common problem. The aim of this study was to assess whether fibrin sealant applied to the duct incision is safe. Methods: Patients planned for laparoscopic gallstone surgery at the Department of Surgery, Enköping Hospital, were included in the study. In cases where perioperative cholangiography showed CBD stones, LCBDE was performed through a longitudinal incision in the CBD. Randomization between closure of the incision with polyglactin sutures or with fibrin sealant was performed. After all the stones had been removed and the incision closed according to the allocation, an abdominal drain was placed close to the incision. A T tube was placed in the CBD or a straight tube into cystic duct for eventual postoperative cholangiogram. The patient and the surgeon assessing the postoperative course were blinded to the randomized allocation. Results: Altogether 51 patients were included from December 2012 to July 2016. Mean operative time was 188 minutes in the fibrin sealant group and 214 minutes in the suture group (P = .159). There was no significant difference between groups in bile flow in the abdominal drainage tube or in the CBD drain during the three first postoperative days. The time to removal of the abdominal drain did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion: Although the present study lacks the statistical power to prove a benefit from fibrin sealant, it indicates that closure of the incision may be an option to reduce the risk for leakage. Further studies are required to confirm this. The study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov September 5, 2015 (NCT02545153).
The role of clips in preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal polyp resection: an individual patient data meta-analysis
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2021
BACKGROUND & AIMS Non-pedunculated colorectal polyps are normally endoscopically removed to prevent neoplastic progression. Delayed bleeding is the most common major adverse event. Clipping the resection defect has been suggested to reduce delayed bleedings. Our aim was to determine if prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleedings and to analyze the contribution of polyp characteristics, extent of defect closure and antithrombotic use. METHODS An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis was performed. Studies on prophylactic clipping in non-pedunculated colorectal polyps were selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane database (last selection: April 2020). Authors were invited to share original study data. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding ≤30 days. Multivariable mixed models were used to determine the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in various subgroups adjusted for confounders. RESULTS Data of 5,380 patients with 8,948 resected polyps were included from three RCT's, two prospective and eight retrospective studies. Prophylactic clipping reduced delayed bleeding in proximal polyps ≥20 mm (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44 - 0.88; Number Needed to Treat [NNT] = 32), especially with antithrombotics (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 - 0.99; NNT = 23; subgroup of anticoagulants/double platelet inhibitors N=226; OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.16 - 1.01; NNT = 12). Prophylactic clipping did not benefit distal polyps ≥20 mm with antithrombotics (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.79 - 2.52). CONCLUSIONS Prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleeding after resection of non-pedunculated, proximal colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, especially in patients using antithrombotics. No benefit was found for distal polyps. Based on this study, patients can be identified who may benefit from prophylactic clipping. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020104317).
Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization for high-risk ulcers following endoscopic hemostasis: a meta-analysis
World journal of emergency surgery : WJES. 2021;16(1):29
BACKGROUND To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization (PTAE) for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. METHODS PubMed and Cochrane Library were queried for full-text articles published up to December 2019. The following keywords were used: "prophylactic embolization", "supplement embolization", "gastrointestinal bleeding", and "ulcer bleeding". High-risk ulcers were defined based on endoscopic findings (i.e., large ulcers, Forrest class I-IIb) and/or clinical presentation (i.e., hypotension, decreased hemoglobin during endoscopy). Only comparative studies investigating PTAE versus conservative treatment after achieving endoscopic hemostasis were included. Baseline study characteristics, rebleeding rate, need for surgery, mortality, and PTAE-related complication rates were investigated. Quantitative analyses were performed with Stata 15.1. RESULTS Among the five included original studies, a total of 265 patients received PTAE and 617 were managed conservatively after endoscopy. The rebleeding rate (6.8% vs 14.3%, p = 0.003) and mortality (4.5% vs 8.8%, p = 0.032) of patients from the PTAE group were lower than the control group. PTAE also reduced the cumulative need for future surgical intervention (3.0% vs 14.4%, p = 0.005). The PTAE-related major and minor events were 0.75% and 14.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION PTAE had therapeutic potentials in reducing rebleeding risk, need for surgical intervention, and morality in high-risk peptic ulcers after achieving endoscopic hemostasis. The embolization-associated adverse events were minimal. Future studies should aim to increase the sample size and resources for performing endovascular interventions.
Empiric Transcatheter Embolization for Acute Arterial Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Meta-Analysis
AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2021;:1-14
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of empiric embolization compared with targeted embolization in the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for studies performed without language restrictions from January 2000 to November 2019. Only clinical studies with a sample size of five or more were included. Clinical success, rebleeding and complication rates, survival rates, bleeding cause, embolic materials, and vessels embolized were recorded. Empiric embolization and targeted embolization (i.e., embolization performed based on angiographic evidence of ongoing bleeding) were compared when possible. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS. Among 13 included studies (12 retrospective and 1 prospective), a total of 357 of 725 patients (49.2%) underwent empiric embolization for UGIB. The clinical success rate of empiric embolization was 74.7% (95% CI, 63.1-86.3%) among the 13 studies, and the survival rate was 80.9% (95% CI, 73.8-88.0%) for 10 studies. On the basis of comparative studies, no statistically significant difference was observed between empiric and targeted embolization in terms of rebleeding rate in 111 studies (36.5% vs 29.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77-1.65; p = .53), mortality in eight studies (23.3% vs 18.0%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.89-2.33; p = .14), and need for surgery to control rebleeding in four studies (17.8% vs 13.4%; OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.58-3.07; p = .49). The pooled embolization-specific complications were 1.9% (empiric) and 2.4% (targeted). CONCLUSION. According to all available published evidence, empiric embolization assessed with endoscopic or preprocedural imaging findings (or both) appears to be as effective as targeted embolization in preventing rebleeding and mortality in patients with angiographically negative acute UGIB. Because of its favorable safety profile, empiric embolization should be considered for patients in this clinical scenario.
Optimal timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Internal and emergency medicine. 2021
Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common indication for urgent endoscopy, but the correct timing of endoscopy in these patients is still debated. Our systematic review with meta-analysis was aimed at investigating the potential clinical benefit of very early endoscopy for UGIB patients. We performed an electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to 23rd May 2020 and considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing management of UGIB patients by very early vs early endoscopy. Only five RCTs were considered eligible for quantitative analysis, with a total population of 926 cases (468 in the very early endoscopy arm and 458 in the early). The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit for very early endoscopy compared to early endoscopy in terms of risk of rebleeding, mortality, ICU admission, blood transfusion, surgery and length of hospital stay. However, our results showed a significantly higher need for haemostatic treatment when very early endoscopy was performed (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.42, p < 0.01) in comparison to early endoscopy.
The Additive Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Actively Bleeding Peptic Ulcer
Clinical endoscopy. 2021
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Peptic ulcer bleeding is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) enhances tissue repair, and is therefore used in various medical treatments. A combination of mechanical or electrothermal hemostasis has been recommended for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding treatment. This study evaluated the additive efficacy of PRP in bleeding peptic ulcer hemostasis and recovery. METHODS Eighty patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were initially treated by hemoclipping, and were randomly chosen for either additional PRP (n=40) or additional epinephrine (n=40) injections. Both groups were compared with regard to achieving hemostasis and the frequency of complications. RESULTS Hemostasis was immediately achieved in both groups. Two patients (5%) in the PRP group and 8 (20%) patients in the epinephrine group experienced rebleeding after 15.9±2.8 and 12.3±3.7 days, respectively. They were managed by PRP injection in addition to proton pump inhibitor infusion. Hemoglobin was substantially increased in the PRP-treated group with full recovery occurring in 60.5% compared to 31.3% of patients in the epinephrine group (p=0.001). There was no recurrent bleeding in the PRP group, but 4/32 (12.5%) patients in the epinephrine group exhibited rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS PRP showed additional benefit in reducing peptic ulcer bleeding with no reported significant complications. Clinical trial (NCT03733171).
Effect of flowable thrombin-containing collagen-based hemostatic matrix for preventing pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: A randomized clinical trial
Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. 2021;25(Suppl 1):S371
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a flowable hemostatic matrix, and their effect for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy. METHODS This was a randomized, clinical, single-center, single-blind (participant), non-inferiority, phase IV, and parallel-group trial. The primary endpoint was the incidence of POPF. The secondary endpoints were risk factors for POPF, drain removal days, incidence of complication, 90-day mortality, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS This study evaluated a total of 54 patients, with 26 patients in the intervention group (flowable hemostatic matrix) and 27 patients in the control group (thrombin-coated collagen patch). POPF was more common in the control group than in the intervention group (59.3% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.037). Among participants who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP), POPF (33.3% vs. 92.3%, p = 0.004) and clinically relevant POPF (8.3% vs. 46.2%, p = 0.027) were more common in the control group. A multivariate logistic regression model identified flowable hemostatic matrix use (p = 0.029) as an independent negative risk factor for POPF. CONCLUSIONS Flowable hemostatic matrix application is a simple, feasible, and effective method of preventing POPF after pancreatectomy, especially for patients with DP.
The effect of pantoprazole and somatostatin combined with thrombin in the treatment of non-esophagogastric varicosity upper gastrointestinal bleeding
American journal of translational research. 2021;13(5):5484-5490
OBJECTIVE To explore the effect of pantoprazole and somatostatin combined with thrombin in the treatment of non-esophagogastric varicosity upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) as well as its influence on serum hs-CRP and coagulation function. METHODS From June 2016 to May 2018, patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to non-esophagogastric varices in our hospital were selected as research subjects. After screening, they were randomly divided into the combined group (57 cases) and the control group (57 cases). After the two groups are treated, the therapeutic effect was observed. The two groups of patients were followed up for 6 consecutive months, and the data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS It was found that there wass no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, amount of bleeding, and etiology (P > 0.05). It was found that the immediate hemostasis rate and the hemostasis rate within 24 hours in the combined group were distinctly higher compared to the control group. The difference has statistical significance (P < 0.05). The total effective rate of the combined group was distinctly higher compared to the control group (P < 0.05). By comparing the expression levels of hs-CRP and IL-6 protein in the serum of the two groups before and after treatment, it was found that there was no significant difference in the expression levels of hs-CRP and IL-6 protein before treatment. However, after treatment, it was found that the levels of hs-CRP and IL-6 protein in the combined group were distinctly lower compared to the control group (P < 0.05). By analyzing adverse reactions, it was found that the combined group had distinctly lower adverse reactions compared to the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION This work provides an experimental basis for the diagnosis and treatment of non-esophagogastric varicose UGB in the clinic.
Efficacy of Hemospray (TC-325) in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal of clinical gastroenterology. 2021
BACKGROUND Hemospray (TC-325) is now approved for use in gastrointestinal bleeding. Data regarding their use pattern, efficacy, complications, and impact on clinical outcomes is limited. METHODS Electronic search from relevant databases was conducted up to January 2019. Etiologies, therapy characteristics, hemostasis rates, rebleed rates, additional procedures, complications and mortality rates were extracted and pooled. RESULTS Twenty-seven articles were included for analysis (n=1916). Pooled hemostasis was 94.5%. Pooled rebleed rate within 3 days was 9.9%, and within 30 days 17.6%. Pooled repeat Hemospray use was 13.6%. Radiology guided embolization was required with rate of 3.3% and surgery at rate of 4.7%. Rate of adverse events directly attributable to Hemospray was 0.7%. 30-day mortality was 11.8%. Comparison of conventional endoscopic therapy to Hemospray augmented therapy demonstrated that Hemospray therapy had increased immediate hemostasis [odds ratio (OR) 4.40]. There was no difference in rate of rebleeding at 8 days (OR 0.52) or overall mortality at 30 days (OR 0.53). Benign nonvariceal bleeds, malignant bleeds, and postprocedural bleeds had similar rates of hemostasis but rebleed rate at 30 days was less for postprocedural bleeding. CONCLUSIONS The addition of Hemospray to conventional therapy appears to increase immediate hemostasis but does not decrease rebleeding or mortality. As such, the use of Hemospray will likely be limited to clinical situations requiring urgent, but temporary, hemostasis to bridge to more definitive therapy.