Epidemiology of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
The clinical profile of variceal and nonvariceal bleed is different. Patients with
variceal bleed are usually middle aged (40–60 years), males, and have a history of
significant alcohol intake. These patients also have higher rebleed rate and mortality.
Patients with NVUGIH, especially peptic ulcer-related bleed, are usually elderly with
associated comorbidities and antecedent history of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelet, or anticoagulants use.[8]
[9]
[10] Epidemiological studies from India have reported a lower mean age and a history
of smoking/alcohol use in the majority of cases of upper GI bleed. Compared with the
West, history of NSAIDs, antihypertensive, antiplatelet, and anticoagulants use is
significantly lower. In India, ruptured esophageal varices is the most common cause
of upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) in contrast to the developed countries where
peptic ulcer disease (PUD) dominates.[9]
[10]
In the last two decades, there has been significant advances in the endoscopic and
radiological hemostatic techniques with widespread use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI).
However, more patients with precomorbid conditions or with antiplatelet/anticoagulant
use have complicated the management strategy.[11]
[12]
[13] Various studies have addressed the impact of these changes on epidemiology and treatment
outcomes. U.S. survey showed a 21% decline in the hospitalization rate for UGIB with
30% decline in admission rates for PUD. However, there was no change in the hospitalization
rates for variceal bleed. All cause UGIB-related mortality showed a 28% decline for
NVUGIH but not so for variceal bleed.[14] The mean age, comorbidities, the use of NSAIDs, and antiplatelet have increased
over last few decades.[15]
Preendoscopy Management
Prognostic Scoring
A patient presenting with NVUGIH should be triaged after assessing the hemodynamic
status of the patient. The commonly used scores are Glasgow Blatchford scale (GBS),
Rockall’s score, and AIMS-65.[2]
[3]
[4] GBS is calculated at the time of admission, and a score >1 warrants inpatient management.
Higher score predicts poorer outcome.[2] A systematic review reported that the predictive value of GBS was superior to Rockall’s
and AIMS-65 scores for identifying low risk patients.[16] In a large prospective study, GBS had the highest accuracy (area under the receiver
operating characteristic curve AUROC = 0.86) for predicting need for hospital-based
intervention and death.[17]
[Supplementary Table S1] (available in the online version) summarizes commonly used scoring systems for upper
GI bleed.
Resuscitation
Initial medical management include fluid resuscitation using crystalloids to maintain
adequate tissue perfusion. Restrictive blood transfusion strategy (target of 7–9 g/dL)
is preferred in view of lower rebleed rate and mortality except in patients with cardiovascular
comorbidities where restrictive transfusion might result in acute coronary events.[18]
Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulants
The risk–benefit ratio for patients receiving antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet/anticoagulants)
should be gauged for bleeding versus thrombotic risk, if these agents are stopped.
Decision should be taken by a multidisciplinary team including internists, gastroenterologists,
cardiologists, and hematologists as higher rates of adverse cardiovascular events
and all-cause mortality have been reported in those who stopped antithrombotic agents.[19]
[20] Various guidelines recommend to continue aspirin if started as monotherapy or in
combination for secondary cardiovascular prevention.[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Aspirin for primary cardiovascular prophylaxis should be stopped temporarily and
if indicated can be resumed within 5 days.[25] Platelet transfusion can be considered in patients with severe UGI bleed with thrombocytopenia.
All the anticoagulants need to be stopped temporarily and can be resumed within 1
week of hemostasis[26] and can be bridged with heparin in patients with high risk of thromboembolism. Reversal
of anticoagulation using vitamin K, prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh
frozen plasma (FFP), and reversal agents for direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) should
be considered in case of hemodynamic instability. However, the increased risk of thromboembolism
and delayed onset of action should be kept in mind if anticoagulant reversal is done.[27]
Proton Pump Inhibitors and Other Medications
High-dose intravenous (IV) PPI (80-mg bolus followed by 8 mg/hour infusion or intermittent
bolus PPI) before endoscopy is suggested to downstage stigmata of recent hemorrhage
and thereby need for endotherapy. However PPI have no effect on clinically relevant
patient outcomes such as blood transfusion requirement, surgery, and 30-day mortality.[28] In view of lack of significant impact on patient-related outcomes and increased
cost, various guidelines have now revised recommendations for routine preendoscopy
PPI. In 2018, the Asia-Pacific working group recommended against the indiscriminate
use of preendoscopy IV PPIs in hemodynamically stable patients.[29] Octreotide and antibiotics have no role in NVUGIH but should be started if there
is suspicion of variceal bleed.[30] Tranexamic acid is not indicated in management of upper GI bleed as recent multicenter
randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed not only absence of reduction in mortality
but also increased risk of thromboembolic events.[31] Use of prokinetics like erythromycin and metoclopramide 30 to 120 minutes before
endoscopy has been shown to facilitate better visualization and successful endotherapy.[32]
Role of Nasogastric Tube and Endotracheal Intubation
Role of nasogastric (NG) tube in management of patients with GI bleed is controversial.
NG tube insertion has no impact on clinical outcome. Moreover, patient discomfort
and invasiveness further limit routine insertion.[33] Routine endotracheal intubation for airway protection is not recommended in view
of increased incidence of aspiration, pneumonia, hospital stay, and mortality but
should be considered in patients with massive bleed, hemodynamic instability, and
altered sensorium.[34]
Endoscopic Management
In a patient of suspected upper GI bleed, endoscopy plays a key role in the decision-making
for further management. It identifies and localizes the source of bleed, plan, and
administer treatment and also helps to assess rebleed risk.
When to do?
The timing to perform UGI endoscopy (UGIE) in acute NVUGIH is classified as emergent
(done in <6 hours), early (done within 24 hours) and delayed (done after 24 hours).
Multiple studies including a recent RCT by Lau et al have tried to ascertain the optimum
timing to perform UGIE in such patients.[35] Majority of the available guidelines recommend an early endoscopy (<24 hours), except
for those with GBS of 0 to 1, where elective endoscopy on an out-patient basis can
be considered.[25]
[26] However, the timing for patients with hemodynamic instability has not been considered
in many of them. To address this issue, the recent AGA guidelines advocates urgent
endoscopy (<12 hours) in patients with moderate-to-large volume hematemesis, in-hospital
bleed, and those with hemodynamic instability despite adequate resuscitation.[26]
Early esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is associated with better outcomes in UGIB.
Early EGD is associated with a decreased risk of hypovolemia, acute kidney injury,
acute respiratory failure, significant reduction in mortality, hospital stay, and
lower total hospital cost.[36] A multicenter study from Europe has also reported shorter hospital stay when EGD
is performed within 24 hours.[37] Jeong et al reported significantly higher mortality and longer hospital stay if
EGD was delayed for >24 hours.[38]
Choice of Instrument
Therapeutic endoscopes (single or double channel) are preferred since they allow better
suctioning of gastric contents or blood clots and passage of larger accessories. An
assistance of water jet is preferred as it helps in better visualization of lesions
and successful endotherapy administration. Distal attachment cap further enhances
the visualization. Duodenoscope can be used to address lesions located in the posterior
duodenal wall or second part of duodenum.
Scanning Endoscopy
A keen observation is prerequisite while performing endoscopy. Esophagus should be
carefully inspected for lesions such as Mallory–Weiss tear as retching during endoscopy
can itself lead to such kind of lesions and may cause a diagnostic dilemma. If blood
or clots are present in the fundus, first examine distally for any source of bleed.
For visualizing the fundus, change of patient position to the reverse Trendelenburg,
supine or right lateral position can be tried. Suction of gastric contents using large
bore suction channel or using clot busting tubing/6-mm channel, removal of clots using
retrieval nets, gastric lavage using wide bore NG tubes, or administering prokinetics
before endoscopy are useful strategies to clear fundal contents. Since identification
of one lesion does not preclude occurrence of another concomitant lesion, UGIE should
be religiously performed examining all the segments.
Endoscopic Classification
Forrest’s classification is widely used to stratify risk of recurrent bleed and need
for endotherapy in patients with peptic ulcer[39] and has been summarized with its rebleeding risks in [Supplementary Table S2] (available in the online version). In a large RCT, Forrest’s IB is associated with
significantly lower rebleeding risk compared with Forrest’s IA, IIA, and IIB. Based
on these results, peptic ulcers are reclassified as high risk (Forrest’s IA, IIA.
and IIB), intermediate risk (Forrest’s IB and IIC), and low risk (Forrest’s III).[40] The choice of therapy also needs consideration for other factors such as site and
size of ulcer, surrounding tissue, and presence of any visible vessel.[41]
Methods of Endoscopic Hemostasis
The three major categories of endoscopic hemostatic techniques are injection therapy,
thermal methods, and mechanical methods. Injection therapy is done using agents such
as epinephrine, sclerosing agents (absolute alcohol, ethanolamine, and polidocanol),
and tissue adhesives (fibrin, thrombin, and cyanoacrylate glue). Contact thermal methods
include heater probe, monopolar or bipolar electrocautery, and hemostatic forceps.
Noncontact thermal methods include argon plasma coagulation (APC). Mechanical methods
include various types of through the scope (TTS) hemoclips and cap-assisted devices
(OVESCO & Padlock). Topical hemostatic agents are upcoming noncontact methods to manage
tumor-related bleed or any other diffuse bleed.
Conventional Methods
The various conventional methods encompass injection therapy with epinephrine, through-the-scope
(TTS) clips, and thermal methods such as heater probe, gold probe, and APC. Epinephrine
injection in combination with either thermal or mechanical therapy is recommended
to manage Forrest’s IA and IB ulcers.[25] However, for these high-risk lesions, adequate hemostasis can be achieved with either
mechanical or thermal therapy alone. Monotherapy with thermal or mechanical methods
is usually recommended for Forrest’s IIA ulcers.[25]
[26] Adherent clots, in cases of Forrest’s IIB ulcers, should be removed using polypectomy
snare, after which the stigmata of underlying vessel will direct the choice of subsequent
endotherapy. Forrest’s IIC and III lesions are associated with minimal rebleed risk
and hence these patients can be discharged on oral PPI therapy alone.[25]
[26]
Injection Therapy
Technical Aspect
Endoscopic injection is performed using 19- to 25-gauge needles which consist of an
outer sheath and an inner hollow-core needle. For safe passage through the working
channel, needle should be retracted into the plastic sheath. At the site of bleeding,
the needle is extended out of the sheath and the solution is injected into the mucosa.
Injection epinephrine (1:10,000 or 1:20,000 with normal saline) is injected in 0.5
to 2 mL aliquots in and around ulcer base. The primary mechanism of injection therapy
is local tamponade resulting from a volume effect, so higher injected volume results
in better hemostasis. A minimum of 5 to 10 mL is required for tamponade effect, better
results are obtained with 10 to 30 mL. Volume of >30 mL increases risk of complications/perforations
and should be avoided. Diluted epinephrine also have a secondary effect due to local
vasoconstriction. Sclerosing agents, such as ethanol, ethanolamine, and polidocanol,
produce hemostasis by causing direct tissue injury and thrombosis. Tissue adhesives
including thrombin, fibrin, and cyanoacrylate glues create a primary seal at the site
of bleeding.
Efficacy
Monotherapy using adrenaline should never be used because of high risk of rebleed.
Head-to-head comparison with thermal and mechanical therapy showed comparable efficacy
but significantly higher rebleeding rate in case of injection therapy.[42]
[43]
[44] Adrenaline stops bleeding transiently by causing vasospasm and local tamponade and
allows better visualization and successful application of mechanical or thermal therapy
afterward.[45] However, some recent studies have shown that thermal or mechanical monotherapy is
as good as combination therapy.[46]
[47]
Mechanical Methods
Conventional methods of mechanical therapy includes TTS hemoclips. Variety of hemoclips
having different properties is available and is summarized in [Supplementary Table S3] (available in the online version).[48] Hemoclip is deployed directly onto a bleeding vessel and it sloughs off within days
to weeks after placement. The choice of these hemoclips depends on ulcer-related parameters
and characteristics of the hemoclip like tensile strength, rotatability, and others.
For confined spaces, use of a smaller clip with precise open and close system are
preferred while for therapies with scope in full retroflexion or using duodenoscope
elevator, clips with 360-degree rotatability are preferred. Clips with higher compression
force are better for fibrotic and large ulcers.[49]
Technical Aspects
The clip is extended out of sheath after insertion of the delivery catheter through
the working channel. The clip and target should be kept close to endoscope. The clip
is opened with plunger handle and then positioned over the target area in tangential
or enface approach either by repositioning of endoscope or by rotation of the clip.
The target area is then grasped between jaws of the clips and clip is applied using
the device handle. Slight suction before deployment of clip enables maximum tissue
capture.
Efficacy
Primary hemostasis rate is 80 to 90% and comparable to thermal therapy.[46]
[50]
[51] Meta-analysis comparing injection, thermal, and mechanical therapies concluded similar
efficacy of each modalities for primary hemostasis but higher rebleeding rate if injection
monotherapy was used.[42]
[43]
[44]
Thermal Methods
Conventional thermal methods are divided into two types: contact and noncontact thermal
devices. Contact thermal methods include heater probe, monopolar, or bipolar electrocautery.
Noncontact thermal methods include APC. [Supplementary Table S4] (available in the online version) summarizes the various available thermal therapeutic
modalities.[48]
Technical Aspect
Contact thermal devices generate heat which results in edema, coagulation of tissue
proteins, and vasoconstriction. Mechanical pressure is also applied on probe tip for
local tamponade combined with coagulation, a process known as “coaptive coagulation.”
At least 8 seconds of forceful contact time of probe should be allowed for adequate
hemostasis. Endoscope should be held as close to the treatment site to ensure obliteration
of culprit vessel. Generator settings for thermal therapy are as follows: for heater
probe, 25 to 30 J/pulse, 4 to 5 pulse (total 100–150 J); and for bipolar/multipolar
probes, 15 to 20 Watts. Area and depth of tissue injury is limited by decreased electrical
conductivity as the target tissue desiccates.
APC uses high frequency, monopolar alternating current resulting in coagulation of
superficial tissue. The electrons flow through a stream of electrically activated
ionized argon gas causing tissue desiccation at the surface. Electrosurgical unit
generator settings for APC include soft coagulation mode, 40 W energy, and gas flow
of 1 to 2 L/minute. Optimum distance from the probe tip to the target tissue should
be around 2 to 8 mm.
Efficacy
Head-to-head comparison between mechanical and thermal therapy shows variable results.
However, majority of studies have reported their equivalent efficacy ([Table 1]). Hence, the choice of therapy depends on availability of hemostatic modality and
discretion of the endoscopist. In cases where there is a difficult location for successful
hemoclip deployment or the lesion has a surrounding fibrotic bed, thermal therapy
can be preferentially considered. Similarly hemoclips can be preferred in anticoagulant-related
bleeding lesions as they cause limited tissue injury.
Table 1
Studies on comparative efficacy of different conventional hemostatic modalities
|
Studies (year)
|
Study design
|
Study participants
|
No. of patients
|
Injection therapy
|
Mechanical therapy
|
Thermal therapy
|
Observation
|
|
Abbreviations: APC, argon plasma coagulation; MPEC, multipolar electrocoagulation;
RCT, randomized controlled trial; TTS, through-the-scope clip; NBVV, non-bleeding
visible vessel; SRH, stigmata of recent hemorrhage.
|
|
Saltzman et al (2005)
46
|
Prospective
|
Forrest’s I and II
Forrest’s I, n = 22, Forrest’s IIA, n = 13, and Forrest’s IIB, n = 12
|
47
|
21 patients (epinephrine along with MPEC)
|
26 (TTS hemoclips)
|
21 (MPEC + epinephrine)
|
Primary hemostasis, rebleed rate, need of blood transfusion, hospital stay, surgery,
and mortality were comparable
|
|
Cipolletta et al (2001)
50
|
RCT
|
Patient with ulcer related bleed with SRH
|
113
|
–
|
56 (TTS hemoclips)
|
57 (heater probe)
|
Primary hemostasis, 30-day mortality, and emergency surgery were comparable. Recurrent
bleed, need of blood transfusion, and hospital stay were lower in hemoclip group
|
|
Lin et al (2002)
51
|
RCT
|
Active bleeding ulcer and NBVV were included
|
80
|
–
|
40 (TTS hemoclips)
|
40 (heater probe)
|
Primary hemostasis was significantly better for heater probe especially for difficult
to approach bleeding. Recurrent bleed, need of blood transfusion, hospital stay, surgery,
and mortality were comparable
|
|
Lin et al (2003)
47
|
RCT
|
Forrest’s I and II
|
93
|
47 (hypertonic saline–epinephrine injection along with heater probe)
|
46 (5 excluded d/t technical failure
|
47 (heater probe + hypertonic saline-epinephrine injection
|
Primary hemostasis, rebleed rate, need of blood transfusion, hospital stay, surgery,
and mortality were comparable
|
|
Peng et al (2013)
52
|
Retrospective
|
Forrest’s I and II
|
194
|
–
|
84 (TTS hemoclips)
|
110 (intermediate dose APC)
|
Recurrent bleeding at 1 week and at 1 month, blood transfusion requirement, surgery,
and mortality were comparable. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in APC group
|
|
Sung et al (2007)
42
|
Meta-analysis including 15 RCTs
|
|
1,156
|
359 injection alone
|
390 TTS clips alone, 242 clips + injection
|
165 thermocoagulation with/without injection
|
Definitive hemostasis, need of surgery, and mortality were comparable between thermal
and mechanical therapies. Higher rebleed rate, need of surgery but no difference in
mortality if injection therapy alone was used
|
|
Marmo et al (2007)
43
|
Meta-analysis including 20 RCTs
|
Combination therapy vs. monotherapy
|
Total patients = 2,472. Dual therapy, n = 1,233 and monotherapy, n = 1,239
|
Injection + clips vs. injection alone, n = 362
Injection + thermal vs. injection alone, n = 376,
Injection + injection vs. injection monotherapy, n = 1,075
|
Injection + clips vs. clip monotherapy, n = 234
|
Injection + thermal vs. thermal monotherapy, n = 425
|
Dual therapy was better to injection monotherapy but not superior to either mechanical
or thermal monotherapy in re-bleed rate, emergency surgery, and mortality
|
|
Vergara et al (2014)
45
|
Meta-analysis including 19 RCTs
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, IIA, and IIb ulcer patients received injection epinephrine alone
vs. epinephrine with second modality
|
2,033
|
12 studies compared injection epinephrine vs. epinephrine + second injection therapy
|
Four studies compared injection epinephrine + clips vs. injection epinephrine alone
|
Three studies compared injection. epinephrine + thermal therapy vs. injection epinephrine
alone
|
Combination therapy reduces persistent and recurrent bleeding rate and need of emergency
surgery compared with injection Epinephrine alone. Mortality and adverse events not
significantly different in combination and epinephrine alone groups
|
|
Calvet et al (2004)
44
|
Meta-analysis including 16 RCTs
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, IIA, and IIb ulcer patients received injection epinephrine alone
vs. epinephrine with second modality
|
1,673
|
11 studies compared injection epinephrine vs. epinephrine + second injection therapy
|
Two studies compared injection epinephrine + clips vs. injection epinephrine alone
|
Three studies compared injection epinephrine + thermal therapy vs. injection epinephrine
alone
|
Adding a second method to injection epinephrine reduced recurrent bleed, surgery,
and mortality. Beneficial effect of adding second modality achieved regardless of
which second hemostatic modality was applied
|
Newer Modalities
Despite recent advances, the conventional methods fails to achieve hemostasis in 10
to 24% of NVUGIH cases. Ulcer size >2 cm, visible vessel >2 mm, location at posterior
duodenal wall, or along lesser curvature, underlying gastroduodenal or left gastric
artery and fibrotic ulcer bed are predictors of failure for conventional methods.[41]
[53] To overcome these limitations of conventional therapy, newer endoscopic modalities
have been developed and studied in patients with NVUGIH. These newer modalities include
over-the-scope clips, hemostatic forceps, hemostatic sprays, radiofrequency ablation,
cryotherapy, endoscopic suturing devices, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided angiotherapy.[7]
Hemostatic Forceps (Coagrasper)
Technical Aspect
Hemostatic forceps (HF) first gained popularity in its use for hemostasis during Per
oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).[54] Antislip jaw further increase its efficacy.[55]
[56] For ulcer bleed or bleeding vessel, HF can be applied, using soft coagulation, directly
by contacting the bleeding point/vessel with the closed tip or by catching the vessel.
The risk of perforation is extremely low because of using lower voltage and without
any carbonization. Potential disadvantages of HF is a reduced coagulation effect in
presence of blood, clots, or water between the tip of the forceps and the bleeding
point. Additionally, patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
need to have their cardiac device mode adjusted.
Efficacy
One RCT comparing Coagrasper and heater probe reported primary hemostasis in 96% patients
treated with Coagrasper compared with 67% in the other group.[55] Another RCT reported higher initial success rate, lower rebleed rates, fewer adverse
events, and shorter procedure time in patients receiving hemostasis using HF compared
with patients managed with hemoclips[56] ([Table 2]). Guidelines recommended hemostatic forceps as alternative treatment option of hemostasis
in patients with ulcer-related bleed.
Table 2
Studies on newer hemostatic modalities
|
Study (year)
|
Design of study
|
Study participants
|
No. of patients
|
Newer hemostatic modality
|
Conventional method
|
Observations
|
|
Abbreviations: APC, argon plasma coagulation; FLET, first-line endoscopic therapy;
GI, gastrointestinal; HFSC, hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation; LGIB, lower
GI bleed; NVUGIB, nonvariceal upper GI bleed; MPEC, multipolar electrocoagulation;
OTSC, over–the-scope clip; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SLET, second-line endoscopic
therapy; SRH, stigmata of recent hemorrhage; TAE, transcatheter angiographic embolization;
TTS, through-the-scope clip; UGIB, upper GI bleed; CAD coronary artery disease.
|
|
Kim et al (2015)
54
|
Prospective RCT
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, and IIA
|
151
|
HFSC + injection epinephrine: n = 76
|
APC + injection epinephrine: n = 75
|
Primary hemostasis, recurrent bleed at 30 days, rate of adverse events, and mortality
were comparable between HFSC and APC groups
|
|
Nunoue et al (2015)
55
|
RCT
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, IIA, and IIb
|
111
|
Monopolar HFSC (group S): n = 56
|
Heater probe: n = 55
|
Primary hemostasis was higher in soft coagulation group (96 vs. 67%, p < 0.001). Recurrent bleed was lower in soft coagulation group (13 vs. 0%, p < 0.01)
|
|
Arima et al (2010)
56
|
RCT
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, IIA, and IIb
|
96
|
Monopolar HFSC: n = 48
|
Hemoclips: n = 48
|
Primary hemostasis, recurrent bleed, surgery, and mortality comparable between both
the groups. Time to achieve hemostasis was significantly shorter in soft coagulation
group
|
|
Kataoka et al (2013)
57
|
Prospective
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, and IIA
|
50
|
Bipolar HFSC: n = 27
|
Hemoclips: n = 23
|
Primary hemostasis was better in hemostatic forceps group (100 vs. 78.2%, p < 0.05). Recurrent bleed and procedure time were not significantly different
|
|
Richter-Schrag et al (2016)
58
|
Retrospective
|
UGIB (n = 69), LGIB (n = 31). Forrest’s IA, IB, IIA, and IIb in case of ulcer bleed and spurting and oozing
in case of other etiology of bleed were enrolled
|
100
|
OTSC as FLET or SLET after failed conventional method
|
–
|
Primary hemostasis and clinical success was 88 and 77% respectively. OTSC when used
as SLET have significantly higher re-bleeding rate compared with FLET
|
|
Wedi et al (2018)
59
|
Retrospective
|
NVUGIB patients underwent OTSC as FLET were included
|
118
|
OTSC as FLET were included
|
|
Primary successful hemostasis was achieved in 92.4%. Compared with Rockall’s risk
category prediction, OTSC reduced persistent, and recurrent bleed and rebleeding related
mortality
|
|
Chandrasekar et al (2019)
60
|
Meta-analysis including 21 studies
|
Upper and lower GI bleeding patients treated with OTSC as first-line or second-line
treatment were included
|
851
|
OTSC (OVESCO)
|
|
Definitive hemostasis was 87.8% after 8 weeks. Technical success, clinical success,
and rebleeding rates after OTSC were 97.8, 96.6, and 10.3%, respectively. Rebleeding
was higher when OTSC used as SLET compared with FLET (26 vs. 9%).
|
|
Gölder et al (2019)
61
|
Prospective study comparing OTSC as FLET vs. SLET
|
Forrest’s IA, IB, and IIA gastric and duodenal ulcers
|
100
|
OTSC (OVERSCO)
Primary OTSC: n = 66
Secondary OTSC: n = 34
|
|
Successful hemostasis, recurrent bleed, and clinical success were comparable between
primary and secondary OTSC (90.9 vs. 94.1, 16.7 vs. 21.9, and 75.8 vs. 73.5%, respectively)
|
|
Jensen et al (2020)
62
|
RCT
|
Severe NVUGIH
Ulcers and Dieulafoy’s lesions,
Major SRH or lesser stigmata with arterial flow underneath documented by Doppler probe
were included
|
53
|
OTSC: n = 25
|
Standard treatment (hemoclips, MPEC): n = 28
|
Significant differences in OTSC versus Standard groups in rates of re-bleeding (4
vs. 28.6%; p = 0.017); severe complications (0 vs. 14.3%) and units of red cell transfusions (0.04
vs. 0.68)
|
|
Schmidt et al (2018)
63
|
RCT
|
Recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding after initial endoscopic hemostasis were included
|
66
|
OTSC: n = 33
|
Standard treatment: n = 33 (TTS clips n = 31, thermal therapy: n = 2)
|
Further bleeding (persistent or recurrent bleeding within 7 days) was significantly
lower in OTSC group (15.2 vs. 57.6%, p = 0.001).
Surgery, TAE, mortality, hospital stay, complications, and transfusion requirement
were not different in both the groups
|
|
Brandler et al (2018)
64
|
Retrospective
|
High-risk lesions (>2 mm, situated in area of a major artery and/or a deep penetrating,
excavated, fibrotic ulcer with high-risk stigmata, where a perforation could not be
ruled out or thermal therapy would cause perforation, or those that could not be treated
by standard endoscopy
|
67
|
OTSC as primary therapy: n = 49, rescue therapy: n = 18
|
|
81.3% success rate of OTSC at 30 days. CAD was independent predictors of rebleed
|
|
Haddara et al (2016)
65
|
Retrospective registry
|
Ulcers: n = 75, malignant lesions: n = 61, postendoscopy: n = 35, others: n = 31
|
202
|
Hemospray (TC-325)
Primary hemostatic method: n = 94, salvage therapy: n = 108
|
|
Immediate hemostasis achieved in 96.5%. Recurrent bleeding at day 8 and day 30 were
26.7 and 33.5%. Rebleeding rate more if melena at presentation and when TC-325 used
as salvage therapy; 26.7% patients required additional treatment
|
|
Chen et al (2015)
66
|
Retrospective study
|
Nonmalignant NVUGIH: n = 21, Upper GI tumors: n = 19, LGIB: n = 11, intraprocedural bleed: n = 16
|
67
|
Hemospray (TC-325)
|
|
Primary hemostasis achieved in 98.5% patients. Early rebleeding (within 72 hours)
occurred in 9.5% patients. No serious adverse events reported
|
|
Prei et al (2016)
67
|
Prospective observational study
|
NVUGIB: n = 58, LGIB: n = 12
|
70
|
Hemostatic powder (Endoclot)
Primary therapy: n = 56
Rescue therapy: n = 14
|
|
Overall treatment success rate was 83% with one week re-bleed rate of 11.4%. Endoclot
was served as bridge to surgery in 10% patients
|
|
Park et al (2019)
68
|
Retrospective study
|
Postendoscopy bleeding: n = 46, peptic ulcer: n = 8 tumor n = 1, other etiology: n = 1
|
56
|
Hemostatic adhesive powder (UI-EWD)
|
|
Technical success 100%, immediate hemostasis 96.4%, rebleed at 30 days 3.7%, no adverse
events
|
|
Alzoubaidi et al (2020)
69
|
Prospective study
|
Peptic ulcer: n = 167, malignancy: n = 50, postendoscopic therapy bleed: n = 49, other: n = 48
|
314
|
Hemospray (TC-325)
|
|
Initial hemostasis achieved in 89.5%, recurrent bleed in 10.3%. Similar hemostasis
between Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%), and rescue therapy
(85.5%)
|
|
Baracat et al (2020)
70
|
RCT
|
Peptic ulcer: n = 26, malignancy: n = 9, postendoscopic therapy bleed: n = 49, postsphincterotomy: n = 6, Mallory–Weiss tear: n = 4, Dieulafoy’s lesion: n = 2, other: n = 11
|
39
|
Hemospray (TC-325) + injection epinephrine: n = 19
|
Hemoclips + injection epinephrine: n = 20
|
Primary hemostasis, rebleed, emergency surgery, and mortality comparable between the
groups. Additional procedure required at relook endoscopy in five patients in Hemospray
group compared with none in Hemoclip group (p = 0.04)
|
|
Prasad et al (2018)
71
|
Prospective study
|
Peptic ulcer related bleed
|
18, Forrest’s IA = 2, IB = 16
|
Endoscopic collagen spray (hemoseal spray)
|
|
Hemostasis was achieved in all patients. No rebleed after 48 hours. No adverse drug
reaction
|
Cap-Mounted Clips
Cap-mounted clips (e.g., Over the Scope Clip [OTSC], OVESCO Endoscopy, Germany; and
Padlock system, Steris Endoscopy) have been evaluated in treating NVUGIH as first
line or salvage therapy ([Table 2]).
Technical Aspects
Cap-assisted devices utilize an applicator cap preloaded with a nitinol clip that
fits onto the tip of the endoscope. In the OTSC system, the cap-mounted clip is affixed
to the tip of the endoscope. A clip-release thread is retrogradely pulled through
the working channel and is fixed onto a hand wheel. The clip is released by turning
the hand wheel in a manner similar to deploying a variceal ligation band. The Padlock
system is installed on the handle of the endoscope and connects to the clip by a linking
cable delivery system on the outside of the endoscope. Padlock system deploys its
clip using “Lock-it” releasing mechanism. Accurate positioning and adequate retraction
of tissue into the cap of the device is required before the clip can be properly deployed.
Due to its unique design and elastic properties of nitinol, cap-assisted devices close
itself, and ensures therapeutic effects.
Efficacy
In a retrospective study (FLETRock study), OTSC was found to be effective as a first-line
therapy in high-risk ulcer patients.[59] Meta-analysis of 21 studies showed 97% efficacy of OTSC as first line therapy.[60] A study comparing cap-assisted clips versus standard therapy as first line treatment
of NVUGIH reported OTSC to be more effective, as well as safe.[62] In a multicenter RCT (’STING’ trial) of patients with recurrent bleed, OTSC was
found to be more effective than conventional mechanical and thermal therapies.[63] Based on these evidences, recent guidelines recommend cap-assisted clips as the
first-line therapy in patients with high-risk ulcers and as a rescue therapy after
failed conventional methods and in patients with recurrent bleed.
Topical Hemostatic Powder
Topical hemostatic powders (TC-325, Endoclot & UI-EWD) have been found to be effective
in patients with bleeding related to tumor, ulcer, and those having diffuse ooze from
the mucosal surface ([Table 2]).
Technical Aspects
C-325 or hemospray (Cook Medical) is an inorganic, absorbent powder which concentrates
clotting factors at the bleeding site and forms a coagulum. The coagulum typically
sloughs within 3 days and is naturally eliminated. Hemospray consists of a pressurized
CO2 canister, a TTS delivery catheter, and a reservoir for the powder cartridge. Endoclot
(Endoclot Plus, Santa Clara, California, United States) is a biocompatible starch-derived
compound that rapidly absorbs water from serum and concentrates coagulation factors,
platelets, and red blood cells at the bleeding site. Another hemostatic powder available
in India is hemoseal powder (Shaili Endoscopy, Gujarat, India) which is collagen powder.
The hemostatic powder is delivered via a spray catheter placed through the endoscope’s
working channel. During hemospray use, caution is required to prevent catheter block.
Moisture should be avoided coming into contact with the catheter by preflushing of
the accessory channel with 60 mL of air and detachment of suctioning tubing prior
to insertion. The deploying catheter should be kept 1- to 2-cm away from bleeding
site. Caution is required when using elevator in duodenoscopes or in retroflexed position
to avoid kinking.
Efficacy
In a multicenter registry of patients with peptic ulcer bleed, topical hemostatic
agents were found to be 86% effective for primary hemostasis with 12.7% rebleed rate.[69] Another RCT compared hemostatic powder with mechanical therapy (TTS) and reported
no difference in rebleed, need of surgery, and mortality risk in two groups.[70] Advantages of hemostatic powders include ease of application, efficacy in diffuse
bleed with poor visualization, and tumor-related bleed. Potential disadvantages include
rebleed, limited efficacy in Forrest’s IA ulcers due to rapid wash away effect, and
efficacy only in presence of active bleeding ([Table 3]). Recent guidelines recommend topical hemostatic powder as a temporary measure of
rescue after failed conventional treatment, recurrent bleed, diffuse bleed, and tumor-related
bleed.
Table 3
Advantages and disadvantages of newer modalities
|
Hemostatic modality
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Abbreviations: EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; OTSC, over-the-scope clip; CAD, coronary
artery disease.
|
|
OTSC
|
|
-
Difficult to apply on hard, fibrotic ulcers
-
After identification of bleeding source, endoscope requires to be withdrawn and reinsertion
after mounting of OTSC
-
Cost
|
|
Endoscopic suturing
|
|
|
|
Coagrasper
|
|
|
|
Hemospray
|
|
|
|
EUS-guided angiography
|
|
|
Endoscopic Suturing
Endoscopic suturing device (Overstitch, Apollo Endo-surgery, United States) has been
evaluated in patients with ulcer-related bleed, particularly large, and deep and fibrotic
ulcers. Various case reports and case series have reported a high success rate, as
well as safety of this modality, in patients with large ulcers.[72]
[73] Endoscopic suturing is limited by high rebleeding rate (29–38%), need of double
channel therapeutic endoscope, and expert endoscopic skills ([Table 3]). Endoscopic suturing is contraindicated in suspected malignant ulcers.
Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Intervention
EUS-guided angiotherapy is a promising modality for bleeding lesions that are inaccessible
or refractory to standard endoscopic techniques. Most common lesions treated by EUS
angiotherapy include Dieulafoy’s lesions, pseudoaneurysm, and gastrointestinal stromal
tumors.[74]
[75] Hemostasis is achieved using coils, cyanoacrylate/fibrin glue, or sclerosing agents
(absolute alcohol and polidocanol). EUS-guided angiotherapy has been mostly used as
a rescue therapy after failed conventional modalities.[75]
Endoscopic Doppler Ultrasound Probe
Endoscopic Doppler probes (EDPs) are currently available to guide hemostasis in patients
with high risk of rebleed. Two EDPs are available at present: (1) the VTI Endoscopic
Doppler system (Vascular Technology Inc., Massachusetts, United States) and (2) endo-DOP
system (GmbH, Singen, Germany). While the VTI uses a 1.5-mm diameter probe using 20
MHz, the endo-DOP uses a 1.8-mm diameter probe with 16 MHz. The probe is applied at
the bleeding point to pick up Doppler signals corresponding to the presence and course
of the underlying vessels. Postendotherapy disappearance of signals can hint at success
of therapy. One comparative study reported lower recurrent bleeding, surgery, and
bleeding-related mortality in patients who received EDP-guided hemostasis compared
with patients who received conventional treatment.[76] Another study reported significantly lower rebleed rate, surgery, and major complications
in patients who received EDP-guided hemostasis.[77]
Various causes of NVUGIH and their preferred hemostatic methods have been summarized
in [Supplementary Table S5] (available in the online version) and a flowchart for the possible management algorithm
have been outlined in [Fig. 2].
Fig. 2 Algorithm for the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH).
GBS, Glasgow Blatchford scale; OPD, outpatient department; OTSC, over-the-scope clip;
UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleed; UGIE, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; TAE, transcatheter
angiographic embolization.
