Abstract

Background and study aims  There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of hemostatic powders in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We aimed to provide a pooled estimate of their effectiveness and safety based on the current literature. Patients and methods  Literature review was based on computerized bibliographic search of the main databases through to December 2020. Immediate hemostasis, rebleeding rate, adverse events, and mortality were the outcomes of the analysis. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. Results  A total of 9 studies with 194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 95 % of patients (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.6 %-98.5 %), with no difference based on treatment strategy or bleeding etiology. Pooled 7- and 30-day rebleeding rates were 10.9 % (95 %CI 4.2 %-17.6 %) and 14.3 % (95 %CI 7.3 %-21.2 %), respectively. Need for embolization and surgery were 1.7 % (95 %CI 0 %-3.5 %) and 2.4 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-4.6 %), respectively. Overall, two patients (1.9 %, 95 %CI 0 %-3.8 %) experienced mild abdominal pain after powder application, and three bleeding-related deaths (2.3 %, 95 %CI 0.2 %-4.3 %) were registered in the included studies. Conclusion  Novel hemostatic powders represent a user-friendly and effective tool in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent which is licensed in the management of haemorrhage associated with trauma. It has been suggested that tranexamic acid may be able to play a role in upper GI bleeding. However, there is currently no recommendation to support this. AIM: The aim of this study was to synthesise available evidence of the effect of TXA on upper GI bleeding. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic review was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant studies. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the risk ratio of primary and secondary outcomes pertaining to the use of TXA in upper GI bleeding. RESULTS A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. The total number of patients in all studies was 12994 including 4550 females (35%) and 8444 males (65%). The mean age of participants in 6 of the studies was 59.3; however the mean age for either intervention or placebo group was not reported in two of the studies. All studies reported on the effect of TXA on mortality, and the risk ratio was 0.95; however, with the 95% CI ranging from 0.80 to 1.13, this was not statistically significant. 6 of the studies reported on rebleeding rate, the risk ratio was 0.64, and with a 95% CI ranging from 0.47 to 0.86, this was statistically significant. 3 of the studies reported on the risk of adverse thromboembolic events, and the risk ratio was 0.93; however, the 95% CI extended from 0.62 to 1.39 and so was not statistically significant. 7 of the studies reported on the need for surgery, and the risk ratio was 0.59 and was statistically significant with a 95% CI ranging from 0.38 to 0.94. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the use of TXA in upper GI bleeding appears to have a beneficial effect in terms of decreasing the risk of re-bleeding and decreasing the need for surgery. However, we could not find a statistically significant effect on need for blood transfusions, risk of thromboembolic events, or effect on mortality. Future randomised controlled trials may elucidate these outcomes.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Current guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral and IV administration of PPIs in PUB. METHODS We performed a systematic search in 4 databases for randomized controlled trials, which compared the outcomes of oral PPI therapy with IV PPI therapy for PUB. The primary outcomes were 30-day recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, while weighted mean differences (WMDs) with CI were calculated for continuous outcomes in meta-analysis. The protocol was registered a priori onto PROSPERO (CRD42020155852). RESULTS A total of 14 randomized controlled trials reported 1,951 peptic ulcer patients, 977 and 974 of which were in the control and intervention groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between oral and IV administration regarding 30-day rebleeding rate (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.65-1.44); 30-day mortality (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.35-1.40); length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.25, CI: -0.93 to -0.42); transfusion requirements (WMD = -0.09, CI: -0.07 to 0.24); need for surgery (OR = 0.91, CI: 0.40-2.07); further endoscopic therapy (OR = 1.04, CI: 0.56-1.93); and need for re-endoscopy (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.52-1.28). Heterogeneity was negligible in all analysis, except for the analysis on the length of hospitalization (I2 = 82.3%, P = 0.001). DISCUSSION Recent evidence suggests that the oral administration of PPI is not inferior to the IV PPI treatment in PUB after endoscopic management, but further studies are warranted.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.

Abstract

Endoscopic injection of glues, clotting factors, or sclerosing agents is a well-known therapy for the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), but less is known about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. In this setting, literature data are scarce, and no randomized controlled trials are available. We performed a review of the existing literature in order to evaluate the role of EUS-guided therapies in the management of NVUGIB. The most common treated lesions were Dieulafoy's lesions, pancreatic pseudoaneurysms, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Mostly, the treatments were performed as a salvage option after failure of conventional endoscopic hemostatic attempts, showing good efficacy and a good safety profile, also documented by Doppler monitoring of treated lesions. EUS-guided therapies may be an effective option in the treatment of refractory NVUGIB, thus avoiding radiological or surgical management. Nevertheless, available literature still lacks robust data.

Abstract

Although current guidelines recommend performing endoscopy within 12 hours for acute variceal bleeding (AVB), the optimal timing remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the effect of endoscopy timing on the mortality and rebleeding rates in AVB through a systematic review and meta-analysis of all eligible studies. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for relevant publications up to January 2019. Overall mortality, rebleeding rate, and other clinical outcomes were determined. For the non-randomized studies, the risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model of the RevMan software (Cochrane) and the inverse variance method were used to analyse binary end points and continuous outcomes, respectively. This meta-analysis included five studies with 854 and 453 participants who underwent urgent (≤12 hours) and non-urgent endoscopies (>12 hours), respectively. All the included studies were retrospective in nature, because of obvious ethical issues. No significant differences in the severity indexes were found between the urgent and non-urgent groups. Three studies showed 6-week mortality and the others in-hospital mortality as main outcomes. No significant difference in overall mortality rate was found between the groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-1.45, p = 0.36). The rebleeding rate was similar between the two groups (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.76-1.93, p = 0.41). Other outcomes such as successful haemostasis, need for salvage therapy, length of hospital stay, and number of blood transfusions were also similar between the groups. We demonstrated that endoscopy timing does not affect the mortality or rebleeding rate of patients with AVB. Therefore, an appropriate timing of endoscopy would be more important than an urgent endoscopy depending on each patient's condition.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Studies evaluating the role of tranexamic acid in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in UGIB. METHODS We searched several databases from inception to June 6, 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tranexamic acid and placebo in UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, rebleeding, all thromboembolic events, venous thromboembolic events, need for transfusion, endoscopic intervention and surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS We included 12 RCTs comprising 14,100 patients. We found no significant difference in mortality, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.74-1.01), rebleeding, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.79-1.02), need for surgery, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.73-1.02), need for transfusion, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) or thromboembolic events, RR (95% CI) 1.16 (0.87-1.56) between treatments. We found an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.23-3.05). Certainty of evidence based on the GRADE framework for the different outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS Tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in UGIB and may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nonsurgical secondary prophylaxis interventions for esophageal varices (EV) rebleeding in cirrhotic patients using network meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Secondary prophylaxis of EV rebleeding in cirrhosis is searched on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The quality of literatures was extracted by 2 independent investigators according to the requirements of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.0. Meta-analysis was performed on Review Manager 5.3 software for the incidence of cirrhosis EV rebleeding, rebleeding-related mortality, and overall mortality; and STATA 15.1 software was used for network meta-analysis. RESULTS In all, 57 randomized controlled trials were reviewed. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL)+argon plasma coagulation has not been recommended by guidelines, and it is rarely used; the number of existing studies and the sample size are small. Considering poor stability of the combined results, these studies were excluded; 55 literatures were included. In terms of reducing the incidence of rebleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) (94.3%) was superior to EBL+endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) (84.4%), EIS+β-blockers (77.9%), EBL (59.8%), EBL+β-blockers+isosorbide-5-mononitrate (52.7%), EBL+β-blockers (51.4%), EIS (34.2%), β-blockers+isosorbide-5-mononitrate (23.7%), β-blockers (20.8%), and placebo (0.8%). In reducing rebleeding-related mortality, TIPS SUCRA (87.2%) was more efficacious than EBL+EIS (83.5%), EIS (47.9%), EBL+β-blockers (47.4%), β-blockers (41.8%), EBL (34.5%), and placebo (7.6%). In reducing overall mortality, TIPS SUCRA (81.1%) was superior to EBL+EIS (68.9%), EIS+β-blockers (59.2%), EBL+β-blockers (55.4%), EIS (48.8%), EBL (48.7%), β-blockers (34.2%), placebo (3.6%). CONCLUSIONS TIPS was more effective in reducing the incidence of cirrhosis EV rebleeding, rebleeding-related mortality, and overall mortality in cirrhosis. Combined with the above results, TIPS is more likely to be recommended as a secondary prophylaxis intervention for EV in cirrhosis.

Abstract

Background: Recently, amongst other hemostatic modalities, Hemospray (TC-325) has emerged as an effective method for managing patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Hemospray in patients with non-variceal upper GIB. Methods: Our primary outcomes were clinical and technical success; secondary outcomes were aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory bleeding, mortality, and treatment failure. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for all reported primary and secondary outcomes. A relative risk meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting direct comparisons between Hemospray and other hemostatic measures. Results: A total of 20 studies with 1280 patients were included in the final analysis. Technical success of Hemospray was seen in 97% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-98%, I (2)=52.89%) and a significant trend towards increasing technical success was seen during publication years 2011-2019. Clinical success of Hemospray was seen in 91% of cases (95%CI 88-94%, I (2)=47.72%), compared to 87% (95%CI 75-94%, I (2)=0.00%) for other hemostatic measures. The secondary outcomes of aggregate rebleeding, early rebleeding, delayed rebleeding, refractory rebleeding, mortality and treatment failure following the use of Hemospray were seen in 27%, 20%, 9%, 8%, 8%, and 31% of cases, respectively. Conclusion: Hemospray is safe, effective and non-inferior to traditional hemostatic measures for the management of non-variceal upper GIB, and can thus be used as an alternative option.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a common life-threatening emergent condition. Immediate tranexamic acid is useful for reducing hemorrhage following operation and bleeding trauma, but evidence on the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding is limited or highly heterogeneous. It is still unclear about using tranexamic acid in the emergent condition of gastrointestinal bleeding. This study, therefore, aimed to determine whether or not tranexamic acid should be used in gastrointestinal bleeding management through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We searched three biomedical databases for relevant randomized controlled trials on this topic. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data for bias assessment and meta-analysis of bleeding, further intervention, mortality, transfusion, and intensive care unit admission. Available data were pooled using a random-effects model, and the results were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity and small study effects were also assessed. RESULTS Thirteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2271) were included in the present synthesis. Our meta-analysis revealed that tranexamic acid significantly reduced the rates of continued bleeding (RR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.43-0.84), urgent endoscopic intervention (RR = 0.35; 95%CI, 0.24-0.50), and mortality (RR = 0.60; 95%CI, 0.45-0.80) compared with the placebo. CONCLUSION According to the available evidence, the present synthesis confirms that tranexamic acid is an effective medication for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Early administration of tranexamic acid may be worth to be recommended for treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department. However, the effects of tranexamic acid on lower gastrointestinal bleeding warrant further clarification.