Search

Background: Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.Methods: Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated.Results: Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07-0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01-0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10-0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16-1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19-2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03-1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events.Conclusions: Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a therapeutic technique developed as an advanced application of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). An important adverse event associated with this procedure is hemorrhage, which may sometimes be uncontrollable. We sought to examine whether cap-assisted hemoclip application is effective in controlling ES-induced hemorrhage.Methods: In this prospective study, we investigated the outcomes in 10 patients who had uncontrolled ES-induced hemorrhage and were treated by cap-assisted application of hemoclip with a forward-viewing endoscope.Results: Nine of the 10 investigated patients were successfully treated using the cap-assisted hemoclip technique with forward-viewing endoscope, yielding a success rate of 90 %. The patient with hemorrhage non-responsive to hemoclipping required catheter embolization of the bleeding artery after its identification by digital subtraction angiography. One of the 10 patients developed mild pancreatitis after the procedure, but was successfully managed conservatively.Conclusions: Cap-assisted hemoclip application with a forward-viewing endoscope appears to be an effective therapeutic modality for achieving hemostasis in cases of ES-induced hemorrhage, without the occurrence of any severe adverse events; we believe that this method should be considered as an option in the management of ES-induced hemorrhage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]