-
Critical Care (London, England) May 2016The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection.
CONCLUSIONS
PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 27142116
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6 -
Cardiovascular and Interventional... May 2016To study the effectiveness of prophylactic embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries to prevent gastrointestinal complications during radioembolization. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To study the effectiveness of prophylactic embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries to prevent gastrointestinal complications during radioembolization.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase and Cochrane literature search was performed. We included studies assessing both a group of patients with and without embolization.
RESULTS
Our search revealed 1401 articles of which title and abstract were screened. Finally, eight studies were included investigating 1237 patients. Of these patients, 456 received embolization of one or more arteries. No difference was seen in the incidence of gastrointestinal complications in patients with prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA), right gastric artery (RGA), cystic artery (CA) or hepatic falciform artery (HFA) compared to patients without embolization. Few complications were reported when microspheres were injected distal to the origin of these arteries or when reversed flow of the GDA was present. A high risk of confounding by indication was present because of the non-randomized nature of the included studies.
CONCLUSION
It is advisable to restrict embolization to those hepaticoenteric arteries that originate distally or close to the injection site of microspheres. There is no conclusive evidence that embolization of hepaticoenteric arteries influences the risk of complications.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Digestive System; Duodenum; Embolization, Therapeutic; Gallbladder; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hepatic Artery; Humans; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Microspheres; Stomach
PubMed: 26935724
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-016-1310-9 -
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Mar 2017We compared laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies with open gastrectomies and with each other that were held for gastric cancer in Europe. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
We compared laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies with open gastrectomies and with each other that were held for gastric cancer in Europe.
METHODS
We searched for studies conducted in Europe and published up to 20 February 2015 in the PubMed database that compared laparoscopic or robotic with open gastrectomies for gastric cancer and with each other.
RESULTS
We found 18 original studies (laparoscopic vs open: 13; robotic vs open: 3; laparoscopic vs robotic: 2). Of these, 17 were non-randomized trials and only 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Only four studies had more than 50 patients in each arm. No significant differences were detected between minimally invasive and open approaches regarding the number of retrieved lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, anastomotic stenosis, postoperative bleeding, reoperation rates, and intraoperative/postoperative mortality. Nevertheless, laparoscopic procedures provided higher overall morbidity rates when compared with open ones, but robotic approaches did not differ from open ones. On the contrary, blood loss was less and hospital stay was shorter in minimally invasive than in open approaches. However, the results were controversial concerning the duration of operations when comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomies. Additionally, laparoscopic and robotic procedures provided equivalent results regarding resection margins, duodenal stump leakage, postoperative bleeding, intraoperative/postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, robotic operations had less blood loss, but lasted longer than laparoscopic ones. Finally, there were relatively low conversion rates in laparoscopic (0%-6.7%) and robotic gastrectomies (0%-5.6%) in most studies.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies may be considered alternative approaches to open gastrectomies for treating gastric cancer. Minimally invasive operations are characterized by less blood loss and shorter hospital stay than open ones. In addition, robotic procedures have less blood loss, but last longer than laparoscopic ones.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Models, Statistical; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26929289
DOI: 10.1177/1457496916630654 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2016Peptic ulcer disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with a significant burden in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Peptic ulcer disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with a significant burden in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is limited information regarding management of peptic ulcer disease in these countries. This study describes surgical interventions for peptic ulcer disease in sub-Saharan Africa.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and African Index Medicus for studies describing surgical management of peptic ulcer disease in sub-Saharan Africa.
RESULTS
From 55 published reports, 6594 patients underwent surgery for peptic ulcer disease. Most ulcers (86%) were duodenal with the remainder gastric (14%). Thirty-five percent of operations were performed for perforation, 7% for bleeding, 30% for obstruction, and 28% for chronic disease. Common operations included vagotomy (60%) and primary repair (31%). The overall case fatality rate for peptic ulcer disease was 5.7% and varied with indication for operation: 13.6% for perforation, 11.5% for bleeding, 0.5% for obstruction, and 0.3% for chronic disease.
CONCLUSION
Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant indication for surgery in sub-Saharan Africa. Recognizing the continued role of surgery for peptic ulcer disease in sub-Saharan Africa is important for strengthening surgical training programs and optimizing allocation of resources.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Chronic Disease; Developing Countries; Duodenal Ulcer; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Stomach Ulcer; Vagotomy
PubMed: 26573850
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-015-3025-7 -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Mar 2016Compared with bariatric surgery, less invasive and reversible techniques to counteract obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have been developed, including the EndoBarrier... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Compared with bariatric surgery, less invasive and reversible techniques to counteract obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have been developed, including the EndoBarrier Gastrointestinal Liner [duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS)]. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of eligible trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the DJBS. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 235 subjects) and 10 observational studies (211 subjects) were included. The risk of bias was evaluated as high in all studies. The mean body mass index ranged from 30 to 49.2 kg/m(2) and 10-100% of the subjects had T2D. Meta-analysis showed that the DJBS was associated with significant mean differences in body weight and excess weight loss of -5.1 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.3, -3.0; four trials; n = 151; I(2) = 37%] and 12.6% (95% CI 9.0, 16.2; four trials; n = 166; I(2) = 24%), respectively, compared with diet modification. The mean differences in glycated haemoglobin (-0.9%; 95% CI -1.8, 0.0) and fasting plasma glucose (-3.7 mM; 95% CI -8.2, 0.8) among subjects with T2D did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events consisted mainly of abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. No deaths occurred. Future high-quality long-term RCTs are needed to further assess efficacy and safety.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Blood Glucose; Body Mass Index; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Duodenum; Fasting; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Jejunoileal Bypass; Jejunum; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Obesity; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Weight Loss
PubMed: 26537317
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12603 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2014Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peptic ulcer rebleeding (PUR) usually occurs within three days following endoscopic hemostasis. However, recent data have increasingly suggested delayed rebleeding.
OBJECTIVE
To better characterize the timing of PUR (Forrest Ia to IIb) following initially successful endoscopic hemostasis.
METHODS
An exhaustive literature search (1989 to 2013), with cross-referencing, was performed to identify pertinent randomized controlled trial (RCT) arms. Patients receiving high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion following successful modern-day endoscopic hemostasis were included. A sensitivity analysis included any patients receiving PPI doses >40 mg daily. The main outcome measure was 30-day rebleeding, while weighted mean averages at t = three, seven, 14 and 28 to 30 days are also reported.
RESULTS
Of 756 citations, six RCTs were included (561 patients; 58.5% to 89.5% male; 55.3 to 67.5 years of age). Among patients receiving high-dose PPI (five RCTs [393 patients]), 11.5% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.7%) experienced rebleeding, 55.6% (95% CI 41.1% to 70.1%) rebled within three days, 20% (95% CI 8.3% to 31.7%) between four and seven days, 17.8% (95% CI 6.6% to 28.9%) at eight to 14 days, and 6.7% (95% CI 0% to 14%) at 15 to 28 to 30 days. Using the relaxed lower PPI dosing threshold, similar respective rates were 14.4% (95% CI 11.5% to 17.3%) overall, with interval rates of 39.5% (95% CI 28.9% to 50.15%), 34.6% (95% CI 24.2% to 44.9%), 19.7% (95% CI 11% to 28.4%) and 6.2% (95% CI 0.95% to 11.5%). Qualitative review of patient characteristics, limited by small sample size, possible bias and study heterogeneity, suggested increased patient comorbidity and postendoscopic use of lower PPI dosing may predict delayed rebleeding.
CONCLUSION
In patients with high-risk PUR undergoing successful endoscopic hemostasis, most rebled within three days, with many experiencing later rebleeding. Additional research is needed to better predict such an outcome.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Duodenal Ulcer; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 25390616
DOI: 10.1155/2014/324967 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25387229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5 -
Obesity Surgery Jan 2015This study aims to assess the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on type 2 diabetic patients. We searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMbase up to Dec 2013.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to assess the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on type 2 diabetic patients. We searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMbase up to Dec 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of bariatric surgery for diabetes patients that reported data with more than 2 years of follow-up were included. We used rigorous methods to screen studies for eligibility and collected data using standardized forms. Where applicable, we pooled data by meta-analyses. Twenty-six studies, including 2 RCTs and 24 cohort studies that enrolled 7883 patients, proved eligible. Despite the differences in the design, those studies consistently showed that bariatric surgery offered better treatment outcomes than non-surgical options. Pooling of cohort studies showed that BMI decreased by 13.4 kg/m(2) (95 % confidence interval (CI), -17.7 to -9.1), fasting blood glucose by 59.7 mg/dl (95 % CI, -74.6 to -44.9), and glycated hemoglobin by 1.8 % (95 % CI, -2.4 to -1.3). Diabetes was improved or in remission in 89.2 % of patients, and 64.7 % of patients was in remission. Weight loss and diabetes remission were greatest in patients undergoing biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch, followed by gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding. Bariatric surgery may achieve sustained weight loss, glucose control, and diabetes remission. Large randomized trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to demonstrate the effect on outcomes important to patients (e.g., cardiovascular events).
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Biliopancreatic Diversion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Follow-Up Studies; Gastrectomy; Gastric Bypass; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Weight Loss
PubMed: 25355456
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-014-1460-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Epinephrine; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25308912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584.pub3