Date post: | 31-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bruce-roberson |
View: | 54 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Justin CY WuProfessor, Department of Medicine & Therapeutics,
Institute of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Updates in Management of
Non-Variceal Bleeding
Cook et al. Gastroenterology 1992
Acute upper GI bleeding
Acute upper GI bleeding
Bleeding peptic ulcers
Bleeding peptic ulcers
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Primary Surgical Hemostasis
Primary Surgical Hemostasis
1970 - 1980’s
1990’s
2
Spurting (Ia) Adherent clot (IIb)
Visible vessel (IIa)
Oozing (Ib) Clean base (III)
Endoscopic stigmata
Forrest
Prevalence
Risks of rebleeding w/o therapy
Acute Spurter Ia 18% ~ 100%
Acute oozing Ib
Non-bleeding visible vessel
IIa 17% Up to 50%
Non-bleeding adherent clot
IIb 17% 30-35%
Flat spot IIc 20% 5-8%
Clean base III 42% < 3%
Johnson et al. GIE 1990; Laine et al. NEJM 19944
Tamponade effect and vasoconstriction with epinephrine
Heater probe 3.2mm [need 2T scope] 2.8mm Pressure + Heat Coaptive effect – compress until sealing of
vessel
6
7
Hemoclip
Sung et al. Endoscopy 2011
Study, Year (Reference)RR RR
n/N n/N 95% CI 95% CI
Favours Injections / ThermocoagulationFavours Clips (+ injections)
(a) Clips versus Injections
(b) Clips combined with injections versus Injections
(c) Clips versus Thermocoagulation with or without Injections
Simoens, 1997 [10] 2/9 3/9 0.67 [0.14, 3.09] Chung, 1999 [11] 1/41 6/41 0.17 [0.02, 1.32] Chung, 2000 [12] 1/9 4/12 0.33 [0.04, 2.50] Gevers, 2002 [13] 7/35 5/34 1.36 [0.48, 3.87] Park 2003 [14] 0/16 5/16 0.09 [0.01, 1.52] Chou, 2003 [15] 4/39 11/40 0.37 [0.13, 1.07] Shimoda, 2003 [16] 4/42 6/42 0.67 [0.20, 2.19] LJubicic, 2004 [17] 2/31 4/30 0.48 [0.10, 2.45]
Total (95% CI) 222 224 0.49 [0.30, 0.79]Total events: 21 (Clips), 44 (Injections)Test for heterogeneity: Chi-square = 6.88, df = 7 (P = 0.44), I2 = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 2.89 (P = 0.004)
Villanueva, 1996 [18] 2/42 7/37 0.25 [0.06, 1.14] Simoens, 1997 [10] 2/9 3/9 0.67 [0.14, 3.09] Chung, 1999 [11] 4/42 6/41 0.65 [0.20, 2.14] Gevers, 2002 [13] 5/32 5/34 1.06 [0.34, 3.33] Shimoda, 2003 [16] 3/42 6/42 0.50 [0.13, 1.87] Park, 2004 [19] 2/23 9/45 0.43 [0.10, 1.85] Lo, 2006 [20] 2/52 11/53 0.19 [0.04, 0.80]
Total (95% CI) 242 261 0.47 [0.28, 0.76]Total events: 20 (Clips + Injections), 47 (Injections)Test for heterogeneity: Chi-square = 4.72, df = 6 (P = 0.58), I2 = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 3.03 (P = 0.002)
Cipolletta, 2001 [21] 1/56 12/57 0.08 [0.01, 0.63] Lin, 2002 [22] 3/40 2/40 1.50 [0.26, 8.50] Lin, 2003 [23] 4/46 3/47 1.36 [0.32, 5.75] Saltzman, 2005 [24] 4/26 5/21 0.65 [0.20, 2.11]
Total (95% CI) 168 165 0.65 [0.21, 2.02]Total events: 12 (Clips), 22 (Thermocoagulation)Test for heterogeneity: Chi-square = 6.42, df = 3 (P = 0.09), I2 = 53.3%Test for overall effect: Z = 0.75 (P = 0.45)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Clips (+ injections)
Injections / Thermocoagulation
9
Clip vs InjectionClip vs Injection
Clip + injection vs InjectionClip + injection vs Injection
Clip vs ThermalClip vs Thermal
Sung JJ et al Gut 2007
STUDY
BALANZO 1990
LOIZOU 1991
SOLLANO 1991
CHUNG 1993
VILLANUEVA 1993
LIN 1993
CHOUDARI 1994
KUBBA 1996
CHUNG 1996
VILLANUEVA 1996
LEE 1997
CHUNG 1997
LIN 1999
CHUNG 1999
GAQRRIDO 2002
PESCATORE 2002
TOATL
WEIGHT (%) PETO OR
4.5 0.81
3.2 0.55
1.0 0.14
12.8 0.80
4.8 2.01
6.2 0.33
6.3 0.91
7.3 0.23
9.0 0.92
3.9 0.25
5.3 0.33
9.5 0.39
5.9 0.27
5.4 0.57
6.1 0.27
8.7 0.78
100.0 0.530.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favors combined therapy
Favors epinephrine alone
Calvet et al. Gastro 200410
30 day mortality: a: Bleeding; b: Perforation
Bleeding Perforation
Lau JY, Sung JJ et al Digestion 2011
12
Mortality cases N = 577 / 10428
Subcategories N Percentage
Bleeding related Uncontrolled bleeding / rebleeding 31 29.2%
N = 106 (18.4%) Within 48h after endoscopy 27 25.5%
During surgery for uncontrolled bleeding
3 2.8
Surgical complications or within 1 month after surgery
31 29.2%
Endoscopy related complication 14 13.2%
Non-bleeding related
Cardiac diseases (ACS, Heart failure) 62 23.5%
N = 460 (79.7%) Pulmonary diseases (COPD, Pneumonia)
108 23.5%
Multi-organ failure 110 23.9%
Neurological diseases (Stroke) 25 5.4%
Terminal malignancy 155 33.7%
Unclassified 11 1.9%
Sung JJ et al AJG 2009
Identification of predictors to adverse events (including rebleeding & mortality) Intensive monitoring and pre-emptive
management
Prevention of rebleeding Improvement in post-endoscopy
management Improve the success rate of primary
endoscopic hemostasis13
Combining ALL predictive factors for the derivation cohort (AUC 0.842)
14
CUHK Outcome Prediction Score
Chiu et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009
15
Time (minutes)
ADP, adenosine diphosphate.
Green et al 1978
Aggregation (%)
0
80
60
40
20
0
1001 2 3 4 5
pH=6.0Disaggregation=77%
pH=6.4Disaggregation=16%
pH=7.3Disaggregation=0%
Buffer
ADP
16
Berstad 1970
0
20
40
60
80
100
Maximum pepsin activity(%)
Gastric juice pH43210
17
18
240 patients with bleeding peptic ulcers Forrest Ia, Ib, IIa Treated by injection + Heater probe
IV Omeprazole infusion vs placebo 80mg bolus dose 8mg / hour for 72 hours Total dose = 656 mg
Lau JYW et al NEJM 200019
p = 0.14; p = 0.13
Lau et al. NEJM 200020
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at 91 centres in 16 countries
RResomeprazo
le 40 mg qd
esomeprazole
40 mg qd
i.v. treatment(72 hours)
Oral treatment(27 days)
EndoscopicHaemostasi
s
1. Single2. Combo
EndoscopicHaemostasi
s
1. Single2. Combo
esomeprazole i.v. 80 mg over 30 min
followed by esomeprazole i.v. 8 mg/h
for 71.5 hours
esomeprazole i.v. 80 mg over 30 min
followed by esomeprazole i.v. 8 mg/h
for 71.5 hoursplacebo i.v. for 30 min followed
by placebo for 71.5 hoursplacebo i.v. for 30 min followed
by placebo for 71.5 hours
Intravenous Esomeprazole for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Re-bleeding: A Multinational, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Study
Intravenous Esomeprazole for Prevention of Peptic Ulcer Re-bleeding: A Multinational, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled StudyJoseph J.Y. SungJoseph J.Y. Sung11, Alan Barkun, Alan Barkun22, Ernst J. Kuipers, Ernst J. Kuipers33, Joachim , Joachim
MössnerMössner44, Dennis Jensen, Dennis Jensen55, Robert Stuart, Robert Stuart66, James Y. Lau, James Y. Lau11, , Henrik AhlbomHenrik Ahlbom77, Jan Kilhamn, Jan Kilhamn77, Tore Lind, Tore Lind77
Esomeprazolen=375
Placebon=389
72 hours 353 (94.1)
22 (5.95.9)3.7 – 8.8
No rebleed
p-value
Rebleed95% CI
349 (89.7)
40 (10.310.3)7.5 – 13.7
0.02560.0256
Risk reduction: 43%
Sung JY et al, AIM 2009
OGD : Bleeding peptic ulcers
OGD : Bleeding peptic ulcers
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Rebleeding (10-20%)
Rebleeding (10-20%)
Scheduled second endoscopy
24-48 hours
Scheduled second endoscopy
24-48 hours
Treat persistent SRH before rebleedingTreat persistent SRH before rebleeding
23
Acute Upper GI Bleeding [556]Acute Upper GI Bleeding [556]
Bleeding peptic ulcer [326]
Bleeding peptic ulcer [326]
Primary therapeutic endoscopy [305]
Primary therapeutic endoscopy [305]
Adjunctive omeprazole
infusion [153]
Adjunctive omeprazole
infusion [153]
Scheduled 2nd endoscopy [152]
Scheduled 2nd endoscopy [152]
Failed hemostasis
[11]
Failed hemostasis
[11]
Forrest I, IIa, IIb
Endoscopic Retreatment
Forrest I, IIa, IIb
Endoscopic Retreatment
RebleedingRebleeding
OGD ± LaparotomyOGD ± Laparotomy
Nov 2003 to May 2008
Carcinoma [9]
Carcinoma [9]
25 Chiu et al. DDW 2010
p = 0.646; OR 1.23 (95% CI 0.51-2.93)
26
P =0.51 ; OR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.12 – 2.01)27
28
After primary endoscopic hemostasis, PPI infusion achieved a similar rate of ulcer rebleeding as compared to scheduled second endoscopy
PPI infusion reduced patients’ discomfort and endoscopists’ workload from repeating endoscopy
Second endoscopy may have an advantage of shortening the hospital stay
Second endoscopy should be recommended if PPI infusion is not available29
OGD : Bleeding peptic ulcers
OGD : Bleeding peptic ulcers
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis
Rebleeding (5%)Rebleeding (5%)
Salvage SurgerySalvage Surgery
Adjunctive PPI infusion / Scheduled second
endoscopy
30
Pre-emptive PPI infusionPre-emptive PPI infusion
Acute Upper GI Hemorrhage
Acute Upper GI Hemorrhage
31
Lau JY, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007
371 UGIB patients randomized to high dose IVPPI or placebo before endoscopy
OmeprazoleN=179
PlaceboN=190
P value
Blood transfusion Mean, SD Median range
1.7, 2.80, 0-24
2.2, 3.91.5, 0-
38
.15
.15
Hospital stay Mean, SD Median, range
4.2, 4.93, 1-41
5.1, 5.63, 0-54
.09.003
Urgent intervention 2 3 1
Surgery for hemostasis
1 4 .37
30 day rebleeding 7 5 .52
30 day mortality 4 5 .79Lau JY, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007
TAE as an alternative to salvage surgery Can also act to pre-emptive embolization
1254 (39.9%) required endoscopic hemostasis1254 (39.9%) required endoscopic hemostasis
3144 bleeding peptic ulcer from January 2000 to July
2009
3144 bleeding peptic ulcer from January 2000 to July
2009
1218 (97.1%) successful hemostasis
1218 (97.1%) successful hemostasis
36 (2.9%) failed initial hemostasis 36 (2.9%) failed
initial hemostasis
166(13.6%) Rebleeding166(13.6%) Rebleeding
52 (31.3%) failed 2nd endoscopic treatment/ 2nd
rebleeding
52 (31.3%) failed 2nd endoscopic treatment/ 2nd
rebleeding
19 TAE19 TAE 33 Surgery
33 Surgery
13 TAE13
TAE23 Surgery23 Surgery
Total:TAE n=32Surgery
n=56
Total:TAE n=32Surgery
n=56Wong TL, Lau JY et al DDW 2010
P = <0.005P = 0.77
Wong TL, Lau JY et al DDW 2010
P = 0.09P = 0.60 P = 0.01
Wong TL, Lau JY et al DDW 2010
Pre-emptive Transcatheter Angiographic Embolization in high risk patients
A prospective RCT is ongoing in PWH…
39
Peptic ulcer rebleeding remains one of the most important clinical catastrophy with significant mortality
PPI Infusion after endoscopic therapy prevent ulcer rebleeding
Schedule 2nd endoscopy served as an alternative when PPI infusion is not available
Pre-emptive Transarterial embolization may served as an adjunctive measure to prevent ulcer rebleeding
Advanced TechnologyMultidisciplinaryClinical Exposure
2 Year Master Programme for Medical and Nursing Professionals