1.
Topical hemostatic agents in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis
Alali AA, Moosavi S, Martel M, Almadi M, Barkun AN
Endoscopy international open. 2023;11(4):E368-e385
Abstract
Background and study aims Novel topical hemostatic agents have shown promising results in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). However, data are limited even in published meta-analyses as to their role, especially compared to conventional endoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to perform a highly comprehensive systematic review assessing the effectiveness of topical hemostatic agents in UGIB in different clinical settings. Methods We performed a literature search of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases through September 2021. Studies assessing the efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in UGIB were included. Main outcomes were immediate hemostasis and overall rebleeding. Results A total of 980 citations were identified and 59 studies with a total of 3,417 patients were included in the analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 93 % (91 %; 94 %), with similar results according to etiology (NVUGIB vs. variceal), topical agent used, or treatment strategy (primary vs. rescue). The overall rebleeding rate was 18 % (15%; 21 %) with the majority of rebleeds occurring in the first 7 days. Among comparative studies, topical agents achieved immediate hemostasis more often than standard endoscopic modalities (OR 3.94 [1.73; 8.96), with non-different overall rebleeding odds (OR 1.06 [0.65; 1.74]). Adverse events occurred in 2 % (1 %; 3 %). Study quality was overall low to very low. Conclusions Topical hemostatic agents are effective and safe in the management of UGIB with favorable outcomes when compared to conventional endoscopic modalities across a variety of bleeding etiologies. This is especially true in novel subgroup analyses that assessed immediate hemostasis and rebleeding among RCTs and in malignant bleeding. Due to methodological limitations of available data, additional studies are needed to ascertain their effectiveness more confidently in the management of patients with UGIB.
2.
The Role of the Endoscopic Doppler Probe in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Chapelle N, Martel M, Bardou M, Almadi M, Barkun AN
Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. 2022
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The effectiveness of the Doppler Endoscopic Probe (DEP) remains unclear in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We thus performed a systematic review characterizing the effectiveness of DEP in patients with NVUGIB addressing this question. METHODS A literature search was done until July 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. A series of meta-analyses were performed assessing outcomes amongst observational and interventional studies for DEP signal positive and negative lesions as well as DEP-assisted versus standard endoscopies. The primary outcome was "overall rebleeding"; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, need for surgery, length of stay, ICU stay and angiography. RESULTS Fourteen studies were included from 1911 citations identified: Observational studies compared bleeding lesions with DEP positive versus DEP negative signals (11 studies n=800 pre-hemostasis, and n=148 with post-hemostasis data from 5 studies). Three interventional studies (n=308) compared DEP-assisted to standard endoscopy management. DEP signal positive versus negative lesions both prior to or following any possible hemostasis were at greater risk of overall rebleeding (OR=6.54 (2.36; 18.11, and OR=25.96; (6.74; 100.0), respectively). The use of DEP during upper endoscopy significantly reduced overall rebleeding rates (OR=0.27 (0.14; 0.54). When removing outcomes analysis for which only one study was available, all evaluable outcomes were improved with DEP characterization of management guidance except for all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION Although low certainty evidence, DEP-related information improves on sole visual prediction of rebleeding in NVUGIB, with DEP-guided management yielding decreased overall rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality and need for surgery.
3.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: limited benefits from early colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding
Kherad O, Restellini S, Almadi M, Strate LL, Ménard C, Martel M, Roshan Afshar I, Sadr MS, Barkun AN
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial. AIM: To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB. METHODS A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated. RESULTS Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days). CONCLUSION In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.
4.
Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group
Barkun AN, Almadi M, Kuipers EJ, Laine L, Sung J, Tse F, Leontiadis GI, Abraham NS, Calvet X, Chan FKL, et al
Annals of internal medicine. 2019
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Description: This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations. Methods: An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional. Recommendations: Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB).
Intervention
Recommendations developed by an international multidisciplinary group of experts
Comparison
None
Outcome
Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.