The Efficacy of Metoclopramide for Gastric Visualization by Endoscopy in Patients With Active Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The 2021 American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines suggested using of intravenous erythromycin before endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) to enhance endoscopic view and reduce the need for repeat endoscopy. Evidence on intravenous metoclopramide, which is more accessible, is scant, especially in patients with active UGIB. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of metoclopramide for gastric visualization in patients with active UGIB. METHODS: Between April 10, 2021, and October 8, 2022, this double-blind, double-center randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with active UGIB (hematemesis or presence of fresh blood in the nasogastric tube). The eligible patients were randomly assigned in a concealed 1:1 allocation to metoclopramide or placebo. The primary outcome was adequate visualization by objective endoscopic visualized gastroduodenal scores (EVS). Secondary outcomes included mean difference in EVS, duration of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), immediate hemostasis, need for a second look EGD, units of blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and 30-day rebleeding rate. RESULTS: Of the 68 eligible patients, 3 of each group were excluded by protocol violation. Finally, 62 patients (31 metoclopramide and 31 placebo) were analyzed. The percentage of patients with adequate visualization in metoclopramide and placebo group was 77.4% and 61.6% (odds ratio [OR] 2.16 [0.71-6.58], P = 0.16). The need for a second look EGD in the 72 hours was lower in the metoclopramide group (3.2% vs 22.6%, OR 0.11 [0.01-0.99], P = 0.02), whereas the other secondary outcomes were not different. However, in gastric lesions subgroup analysis, metoclopramide improved the adequate visualization rate (92.9% vs 50%, OR 13 [1.32-128.10], P = 0.03) and mean EVS at fundus (1.79 ± 0.42 vs 1.29 ± 0.72; P = 0.03). DISCUSSION: Metoclopramide did not improve endoscopic visualization but decreased the need for second look EGD in patients with overall active UGIB. It improved gastric visualization in those with UGIB due to gastric lesions, primarily by improving visualization in the fundus ( ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04771481).

Hemostatic Powder vs Standard Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Tumor Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines vary as to their recommendations addressing the role of hemostatic powders when managing patients with malignant gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding because these are based on very-low- to low-quality evidence, in large part due to a paucity of randomized trial data. METHODS: This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting with active bleeding from an upper or lower GI lesion suspected to be malignant at index endoscopy between June 2019 and January 2022 were randomly allocated to receive either TC-325 alone or standard endoscopic treatment (SET). The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding, and secondary objectives included immediate hemostasis and other clinically relevant endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients made up the study population (55 TC-325 and 51 SET, after 1 exclusion in the TC-325 group and 5 in the SET group). Baseline characteristics and endoscopic findings did not differ between the groups. Thirty-day rebleeding was significantly lower in the TC-325 (2.1% TC-325 vs 21.3% SET; odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.80; P = .003). Immediate hemostasis rates were 100% in the TC-325 group vs 68.6% in the SET group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Independent predictors of 6-month survival included the Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .007) and receiving an additional nonendoscopic hemostatic or oncologic treatment during 30 days after the index endoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P < .001) after adjustment for functional status, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and an upper GI source of bleeding. CONCLUSION: The TC-325 hemostatic powder results in greater immediate hemostasis rates followed by lower 30-day rebleeding rates when compared to contemporary SET. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03855904).

Outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with coronary artery disease: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) increases in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) due to the frequent use of antiplatelets. There is some data reporting on treatment outcomes in CAD patients presenting with UGIB. We aim to determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of UGIB in patients with CAD, compared with non-CAD patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-center cohort study (THAI UGIB-2010) that enrolled 981 consecutive hospitalized patients with acute UGIB. A matched case-control analysis using this database, which was collected from 11 tertiary referral hospitals in Thailand between January 2010 and September 2011, was performed. RESULT: Of 981 hospitalized patients with UGIB, there were 61 CAD patients and 244 gender-matched non-CAD patients (ratio 1:4). UGIB patients with CAD were significantly older, and had more frequently used antiplatelets and warfarin than in non-CAD patients. Compared with non-CAD, the CAD patients had significantly higher Glasgow-Blatchford score, full and pre-endoscopic Rockall score and full. Peptic ulcer in CAD patients was identified more often than in non-CAD patients. UGIB patients with CAD and non-CAD had similar outcomes with regard to mortality rate, re-bleeding, surgery, embolization, and packed erythrocyte transfusion. However, CAD patients had longer duration of hospital stays than non-CAD patients. Two CAD patients died from cardiac arrest after endoscopy, whereas three non-CAD patients died from pneumonia and acute renal failure during their hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In Thailand, patients presenting with UGIB, concomitant CAD did not affect clinical outcome of treatment, compared with non-CAD patients, except for longer hospital stay.

Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Data regarding the efficacy of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), full Rockall score (FRS) and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores (PRS) in comparing non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are limited. Our aim was to determine the performance of these three risk scores in predicting the need for treatment, mortality, and re-bleeding among patients with non-variceal and variceal UGIB. METHODS: During January, 2010 and September, 2011, patients with UGIB from 11 hospitals were prospectively enrolled. The GBS, FRS, and PRS were calculated. Discriminative ability for each score was assessed using the receiver operated characteristics curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: A total of 981 patients presented with acute UGIB, 225 patients (22.9%) had variceal UGIB. The areas under the ROC (AUC) of the GBS, FRS, and PRS for predicting the need for treatment were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.61 in non-variceal versus 0.66, 0.66, and 0.59 in variceal UGIB. The AUC for predicting mortality and re-bleeding during admission were 0.66, 0.80, and 0.76 in non-variceal versus 0.63, 0.57, and 0.63 in variceal UGIB. AUC score was not statistically significant for predicting need for therapy and clinical outcome in variceal UGIB. The GBS ≤ 2 and FRS ≤ 1 identified low-risk non-variceal UGIB patients for death and re-bleeding during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In contrast to non-variceal UGIB, the GBS, FRS, and PRS were not precise scores for assessing the need for therapy, mortality, and re-bleeding during admission in variceal UGIB.