Abbonarsi

Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses - 23/08/11

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.031 
Alan N. Barkun, MD, CM, MSc (Clinical Epidemiology), FACP, FACG, AGAF, FASGE , Myriam Martel, BSc, Youssef Toubouti, MSc, Elham Rahme, PhD, Marc Bardou, MD, PhD
Current affiliations: Divisions of Gastroenterology (A.N.B., M.M., M.B.), Clinical Epidemiology (A.N.B., Y.T., E.R.), the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital site, Montréal, Québec, Canada, the Division of Clinical Pharmacology (M.B.), LPPCE, IFR Santé-STIC, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Bourgogne, INSERM CIC-P 803 (M.B.), CHU du Bocage, Dijon Cédex, France 

Reprint requests: Alan Barkun, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital site, Rm D7-148, 1650 Cedar Ave, Montréal, Québec, H3G 1A4, Canada.

Montréal, Québec, Canada, Dijon, France

Abstract

Background and Objective

Optimal endoscopic hemostasis remains undetermined. This was a systematic review of contemporary methods of endoscopic hemostasis for patients with bleeding ulcers that exhibited high-risk stigmata.

Setting

Randomized trials that evaluated injection, thermocoagulation, clips, or combinations of these were evaluated from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (1990-2006).

Patients

A total of 4261 patients were evaluated.

Outcomes

Outcomes were rebleeding (primary), surgery, and mortality (secondary). Summary statistics were determined; publication bias and heterogeneity were sought by using funnel plots or by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

Results

Forty-one trials assessed 4261 patients. All endoscopic therapies decreased rebleeding versus pharmacotherapy alone, including sole intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibition (PPI) (OR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34-0.92]); only one trial assessed high-dose IV PPI. Injection alone was inferior compared with other methods, except for thermal hemostasis (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.40]), with a strong trend of increased rebleeding if 1 injectate is used rather than 2 (OR 1.40 [95% CI, 0.95-2.05]). Injection followed by thermal therapy did not decrease rebleeding compared with clips (OR 0.82 [95% CI, 0.28-2.38]) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.24-2.62]). Subgroup analysis, however, suggested that injection followed by thermal therapy was superior to thermal therapy alone. Clips were superior to thermal therapy (OR 0.24 [95% CI, 0.06-0.95]) but, when followed by injection, were not superior to clips alone (OR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.36-4.76]). Surgery or mortality was not altered in most comparisons.

Conclusions

All endoscopic treatments are superior to pharmacotherapy alone; only 1 study assessed high-dose IV PPI. Optimal endoscopic therapies include thermal therapy or clips, either alone or in combination with other methods. Additional data are needed that compare injection followed by thermal therapy to clips alone or clips combined with another method.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Abbreviations : APC, ARD, H2RA, HPT, IV, MPEC, NNT, OR, PPI, PUB, RR


Mappa


 DISCLOSURE: The following author disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: A. Barkun: Consultant, speaker, or has received arms length research support from Astra Zeneca, Abbott Canada, and Olympus Canada. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
 If you want to chat with an author of this article, you may contact him at alan.barkun@muhc.mcgill.ca.


© 2009  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 69 - N° 4

P. 786-799 - aprile 2009 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • A surgical experience suggesting the threshold for endoscopic therapy
  • Richard E. Sampliner
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Endoscopic balloon dilation in caustic-induced chronic gastric outlet obstruction
  • Rakesh Kochhar, Usha Dutta, Pradeepta K. Sethy, Gursewak Singh, Saroj Kant Sinha, Birinder Nagi, Jai Dev Wig, Kartar Singh

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.