PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16536237

Endoscopic approaches to upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Abstract

Treatment for most patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding has shifted from the operating room to the endoscopy suite. Endoscopic treatment has resulted in substantial benefit for patients with bleeding from peptic ulcer. Ulcers associated with high-risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) not treated endoscopically have 40 per cent to 100 per cent risk of continued or recurrent bleeding and up to a 35 per cent chance of requiring surgical control of bleeding. Endoscopic therapy has reduced the risk of recurrent bleeding to 10 per cent to 20 per cent and the need for surgery to 5 per cent to 10 per cent. These improvements translate to shorter hospital stays, fewer transfusions, lower costs, and less morbidity. Similar progress has been made for patients bleeding from esophageal varices. Mortality for a first variceal bleed is now approximately 20 per cent as compared with 40 per cent to 60 per cent in past decades. Rebleeding after initially successful endoscopic hemostasis is often best treated by a second attempt at endoscopic control. The decision regarding management of recurrent bleeding should be made at the time initial endoscopic control is achieved. Local factors such as experience of the endoscopic team, availability of interventional radiologists, and individual patient characteristics should guide these decisions. Failures of endoscopic control and patients with massive hemorrhage still require operative intervention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Greg V Stiegmann. 2006. Endoscopic approaches to upper gastrointestinal bleeding.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16536237/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Management of acute bleeding from portal hypertension.

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent and severe complication of portal hypertension. The most frequent cause of the bleeding is variceal rupture. Despite improvements in prognosis after variceal bleeding over the past two decades, the 6-week mortality rate remains high, ranging from 15 to 30%. Patients die from uncontrolled bleeding, early rebleeding, infection, or renal failure within the first weeks of a bleeding episode. Poor hepatic function, severe portal hypertension with a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg, and active bleeding at endoscopy are independently associated with poor prognosis. First-line treatment includes resuscitation, prophylactic antibiotic therapy, the combined use of vasoactive drugs (started as soon as possible), and an endoscopic procedure. Reconstitution of blood volume should be done cautiously to maintain the haematocrit between 25 and 30%. Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide can be used, and drug therapy is maintained from 48 h to 5 days. Ligation is the endoscopic treatment of choice in bleeding oesophageal varices; in gastric varices, obturation with cyanoacrylate is preferable. Uncontrolled bleeding should be an indication for a salvage transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS). In patients with Child-Pugh score A, shunt surgery might be an alternative to TIPS. Trials are currently ongoing into the precise indications of early TIPS in selected patients with an HVPG >20 mmHg, and into the usefulness of administration of recombinant activated factor VII when there is an active bleeding at endoscopy.

Esophageal and Gastric Varices↗

The implications of publication bias for meta-analysis' other parameter.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the validity of a meta-analysis is the possibility of publication bias, where studies that are interesting or statistically significant are more likely to be published than those with less encouraging results. In particular, there is the concern that this bias might be 'one-sided', where studies indicating that the treatment is beneficial have a greater probability of publication. The impact that this type of bias has on the estimate of treatment effect has received a great deal of attention but this also has implications for estimates of between-study variance. Using step functions to model the bias it can be demonstrated that it is impossible to make generalizations concerning how we should revise estimates of between-study variance when presented with the possibility of publication bias. To determine this, assumptions must be made concerning the form that the bias takes, which is unknown in practice.

Esophageal and Gastric Varices↗