-
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Sep 2022Gastrosplenic fistula is an unusual complication of benign as well as malignant gastric and splenic pathologies. This pathology acquires an important clinical... (Review)
Review
Gastrosplenic fistula is an unusual complication of benign as well as malignant gastric and splenic pathologies. This pathology acquires an important clinical significance due to its rare association with life-threatening upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. The aim of this article is to review the English-language literature in order to gain a better understanding of etiological factors, diagnostic evaluation, and management of gastrosplenic fistula. The systematic search of the literature was performed on PubMed and MEDLINE from January 1950 to September 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. We retrieved 44 articles matching our selection criteria from the search. There were 3 case series, 37 case reports, and 4 review of the literature. In our appraisal of articles published in PUBMED, a total of 36 cases of malignant and 10 cases of benign gastrosplenic fistula could be identified. Gastrosplenic fistula is an exceptional complication of malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract. Lymphomas particularly arising from the spleen are the commonest cause. Gastric adenocarcinoma causing GSF is extremely rare. Most cases occur spontaneously, but at times, it can be secondary to tumour necrosis following chemotherapy.
PubMed: 36187537
DOI: 10.1007/s13193-022-01551-5 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Mar 2020Acute esophageal necrosis (AEN) is a rare entity with multifactorial etiology, usually presenting with signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
BACKGROUND
Acute esophageal necrosis (AEN) is a rare entity with multifactorial etiology, usually presenting with signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
AIM
To systematically review all available data on demographics, clinical features, outcomes and management of this medical condition.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed with respect to the PRISMA statement (end-of-search date: October 24, 2018). Data on the study design, interventions, participants and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Seventy-nine studies were included in this review. Overall, 114 patients with AEN were identified, of whom 83 were males and 31 females. Mean patient age was 62.1 ± 16.1. The most common presenting symptoms were melena, hematemesis or other manifestations of gastric bleeding (85%). The lower esophagus was most commonly involved (92.9%). The most widely implemented treatment modality was conservative treatment (75.4%), while surgical or endoscopic intervention was required in 24.6% of the cases. Mean overall follow-up was 66.2 ± 101.8 d. Overall 29.9% of patients died either during the initial hospital stay or during the follow-up period. Gastrointestinal symptoms on presentation [Odds ratio 3.50 (1.09-11.30), = 0.03] and need for surgical or endoscopic treatment [surgical: Odds ratio 1.25 (1.03-1.51), = 0.02; endoscopic: Odds ratio 1.4 (1.17-1.66), < 0.01] were associated with increased odds of complications. A sub-analysis separating early versus late cases (after 2006) revealed a significantly increased frequency of surgical or endoscopic intervention (9.7 % 30.1% respectively, = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
AEN is a rare condition with controversial pathogenesis and unclear optimal management. Although the frequency of surgical and endoscopic intervention has increased in recent years, outcomes have remained the same. Therefore, further research work is needed to better understand how to best treat this potentially lethal disease.
PubMed: 32218893
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v12.i3.104 -
American Journal of Epidemiology Feb 2011To evaluate the association between gastric cancer susceptibility and inflammation-related gene polymorphisms, the authors conducted a series of meta-analyses using a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To evaluate the association between gastric cancer susceptibility and inflammation-related gene polymorphisms, the authors conducted a series of meta-analyses using a predefined protocol. Genes investigated were those coding for the interleukin (IL) proteins (IL1B, IL1RN, IL8, and IL10) and for tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Gastric cancers were stratified by histologic subtype and anatomic subsite, by Helicobacter pylori infection status, by geographic location (Asian or non-Asian study population), and by a quantitative index of study quality. All published literature and meeting abstracts from the period 1990-2006 were considered. Results consistently supported increased cancer risk for IL1RN2 carriers; the increased risk was specific to non-Asian populations and was seen for intestinal and diffuse cancers, distal cancers, and, to a lesser extent, cardia cancers. Analyses restricted to high-quality studies or H. pylori-positive cases and controls also showed significant associations with both carrier status and homozygosity status. In Asian populations, reduced risk was observed in association with IL1B-31C carrier status. This effect was also observed in analyses restricted to high-quality studies. These results indicate the importance of stratification by anatomic site, histologic type, H. pylori infection, and country of origin. Study quality considerations, both laboratory and epidemiologic, can also affect results and may explain, in part, the variability in results published to date.
Topics: Asian People; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukins; Odds Ratio; Polymorphism, Genetic; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 21178102
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq370 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Xiaoaiping injection combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer by meta-analysis. Seven...
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Xiaoaiping injection combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer by meta-analysis. Seven databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched by computer for randomized controlled clinical trials of Xiaoaiping injection combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer. Risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. There were 16 articles that met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1,236 patients, 617 in the observation group and 619 in the control group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the observation group was better than chemotherapy alone control group in RR [OR = 1.86, < 0.00001]; disease control rate (DCR) [OR = 2.45, < 0.00001]; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score [OR = 3.21, < 0.00001] or [MD = 7.73, = 0.001]. In terms of biochemical indicators, Xiaoaiping significantly reduced inflammation factors level, including tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) [MD = -15.00, < 0.00001]; interleukin-6 (IL-6) [MD = -13.00, < 0.00001]; C-reaction protein (CRP) [MD = -5.80, < 0.00001]. Xiaoaiping could enhance immune function, significantly reducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) [MD = -6.20, < 0.00001] and Treg [MD = -1.70, < 0.00001]. Xiaoaiping injection combined with chemotherapy could significantly decrease tumor markers, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) [MD = -11.64, < 0.00001]; CA199 [MD = -33.57, = 0.02]; CA242 [MD = -20.66, < 0.00001]; CA125 [MD = -12.50, = 0.0005]. In the comparison of adverse reactions, the incidence rate of Xiaoaiping injection group was significantly lower than that of control group. The funnel plot showed that the left and right sides are basically symmetrical, and it can be considered that there is no obvious publication bias. Xiaoaiping injection combined with chemotherapy has better curative effect and less adverse reactions in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, limited by the quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are still needed to be verified. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022353842], identifier [CRD42022353842].
PubMed: 36249747
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1023314 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Previous evidence indicated that -induced inflammation is the first step towards gastric carcinogenesis. However, investigations of the immunological factors driving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous evidence indicated that -induced inflammation is the first step towards gastric carcinogenesis. However, investigations of the immunological factors driving this process have shown inconsistencies. We aimed to present a thorough summary of all researched cytokines in relation to infection and GC and relate these to global GC risk.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and tandem meta-analysis identifying all published studies reporting on serum cytokine levels in -infected cases vs. non-infected controls and gastric cancer cases vs. non-gastric cancer controls, with sub-analyses performed to identify global regional differences in cytokine induction and their correlation with GC incidence.
RESULTS
Only levels of systemic IL-6 (standardized mean difference [SMD]:0.95, 95%CI [0.45;1.45]) and TNF-α (SMD:0.88, 95%CI [0.46; 1.29]) were significantly increased upon infection. Sub-analysis showed that of IL-6 levels were increased upon infection in East Asian, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian cohorts, but not in North America, Europe, Russia and Africa. Serum levels of IL-6, IL-7, IL-10, IL-12, and TNF-α were significantly raised in GC. Exploration of the relationship between serum cytokines changes upon infection and regional differences in risk of GC development indicated that the SMD of IL-6 serum levels presents a significant correlation with the relative incidence of GC (=0.81, =0.00014).
CONCLUSION
This study shows that infection and GC are associated with increased IL-6 and TNF-α levels. Particularly, IL-6 shows region-specific increases that correlate with GC incidence, making it a key contender for the cause of this disease.
Topics: Humans; Cytokines; Helicobacter pylori; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Interleukin-6; Stomach Neoplasms; Helicobacter Infections
PubMed: 37006300
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1125658 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and the reported long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One of these is percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), which causes dehydration and necrosis of tumour cells, accompanied by small-vessel thrombosis, leading to tumour ischaemia and destruction of the tumour.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 10 September 2019: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Science Citation Index Expanded; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17 September 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection and its comparators (no intervention, other ablation methods, systemic treatments) for liver metastases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one randomised clinical trial comparing percutaneous intratumour ethanol injection (PEI) in addition to transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone. The trial was conducted in China and included 48 trial participants with liver metastases: 25 received PEI plus TACE, and 23 received TACE alone. The trial included 37 male and 11 female participants. Mean participant age was 49.3 years. Sites of primary tumours included colon (27 cases), stomach (12 cases), pancreas (3 cases), lung (3 cases), breast (2 cases), and ovary (1 case). Seven participants had a single tumour, 15 had two tumours, and 26 had three or more tumours in the liver. The bulk diameter of the tumour on average was 3.9 cm, ranging from 1.2 cm to 7.6 cm. Participants were followed for 10 months to 43 months. The trial reported survival data after one, two, and three years. In the PEI + TACE group, 92%, 80%, and 64% of participants survived after one year, two years, and three years; in the TACE alone group, these percentages were 78.3%, 65.2%, and 47.8%, respectively. Upon conversion of these data to mortality rates, the calculated risk ratio (RR) for mortality at last follow-up when PEI plus TACE was compared with TACE alone was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.33; very low-certainty evidence) after three years of follow-up. Local recurrence was 16% in the PEI plus TACE group and 39.1% in the TACE group, resulting in an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.15; very low-certainty evidence). Forty-five out of a total of 68 tumours (66.2%) shrunk by at least 25% in the PEI plus TACE group versus 31 out of a total of 64 tumours (48.4%) in the TACE group. Trial authors reported some adverse events but provided very few details. We did not find data on time to mortality, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, health-related quality of life, or time to progression of liver metastases. The single included trial did not provide information on funding nor on conflict of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for the effectiveness of PEI plus TACE versus TACE in people with liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on one small randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias. Currently, it cannot be determined whether adding PEI to TACE makes a difference in comparison to using TACE alone. Evidence for benefits or harms of PEI compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments is lacking.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Ethanol; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32017845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008717.pub3 -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2020Anastomotic leaks remain a major complication following oesophagectomy, accounting for high morbidity and mortality. Recently, gastric ischaemic conditioning (GIC) has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Anastomotic leaks remain a major complication following oesophagectomy, accounting for high morbidity and mortality. Recently, gastric ischaemic conditioning (GIC) has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity through neovascularisation of the gastric conduit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the impact of GIC on postoperative outcomes following oesophagectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting GIC for any indication of oesophageal resection up to April 25, 2019. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes were conduit necrosis, anastomotic strictures, overall and major complications or in-hospital mortality. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects modelling.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies reported on GIC, of which 13 were comparative studies. GIC was performed through ligation in 13 studies and embolisation in six studies. GIC did not appear to reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.80, CI 0.51-1.24, p = 0.3), anastomotic strictures (OR 0.75, CI 0.35-1.60, p = 0.5), overall complications (OR 1.02, CI 0.48-2.16, p = 0.9), major complications (OR 1.06, CI 0.53-2.11, p = 0.9), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.70, CI 0.32-1.53, p = 0.4). However, GIC was associated with reduced rates of conduit necrosis (OR 0.30, CI 0.11-0.77, p = 0.013).
CONCLUSION
GIC does not appear to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy but seems to reduce severity of leakages. More in depth studies are recommended.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Ischemic Preconditioning
PubMed: 32198097
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.020 -
BJS Open Mar 2021The aim of this systematic review was to identify all methods to quantify intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) of the gastrointestinal anastomosis, and to find...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to identify all methods to quantify intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) of the gastrointestinal anastomosis, and to find potential thresholds to predict patient outcomes, including anastomotic leakage and necrosis.
METHODS
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. A PubMed and Embase literature search was performed. Articles were included when FA with indocyanine green was performed to assess gastrointestinal perfusion in human or animals, and the fluorescence signal was analysed using quantitative parameters. A parameter was defined as quantitative when a diagnostic numeral threshold for patient outcomes could potentially be produced.
RESULTS
Some 1317 articles were identified, of which 23 were included. Fourteen studies were done in patients and nine in animals. Eight studies applied FA during upper and 15 during lower gastrointestinal surgery. The quantitative parameters were divided into four categories: time to fluorescence (20 studies); contrast-to-background ratio (3); pixel intensity (2); and numeric classification score (2). The first category was subdivided into manually assessed time (7 studies) and software-derived fluorescence-time curves (13). Cut-off values were derived for manually assessed time (speed in gastric conduit wall) and derivatives of the fluorescence-time curves (Fmax, T1/2, TR and slope) to predict patient outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Time to fluorescence seems the most promising category for quantitation of FA. Future research might focus on fluorescence-time curves, as many different parameters can be derived and the fluorescence intensity can be bypassed. However, consensus on study set-up, calibration of fluorescence imaging systems, and validation of software programs is mandatory to allow future data comparison.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Coloring Agents; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Fluorescein Angiography; Humans; Indocyanine Green; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33893811
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa074 -
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