Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.

Best Practice Recommendations for Diagnosis and Management of Helicobacter pylori-Synthesizing the Guidelines.

Purpose of review Three guidelines on Helicobacter pylori have been published recently with recommendations that differ from past guidelines. In this review, we summarize the Toronto consensus statement, the Maastricht V/Florence consensus report and the American College of Gastroenterology guidelines on H. pylori, comparing and contrasting the recommendations. We also provide a proposed approach integrating the information from all three guidelines. Findings Increasing antibiotic resistance has decreased the effectiveness of past treatment regimens for H. pylori. The recommended treatment approach should be based on local and individual antibiotic resistance patterns. Empiric first-line therapy should be a 14-day course of bismuth- or antibiotic-based quadruple therapy. Clarithromycin triple therapy is not recommended unless the local clarithromycin resistance rate is less than 15%. Second-line therapy should be influenced by the failed first-line therapy. Quadruple bismuth-based therapy or levofloxacin-based therapy are suggested regimens. Testing for antibiotic resistance is recommended after multiple failed treatments. Summary Therapy of H. pylori should be based on the knowledge of local antibiotic resistance patterns. Unfortunately, these are often not available. Additional efforts are needed to define local antibiotic resistance to allow susceptibility-based treatment. In the meantime, 14-day quadruple therapy with bismuth or concomitant antibiotics is the recommended as an empiric first-line treatment approach.

Editorial: Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer: What is the Most Cost-Effective Approach?

During their lifetime, about 10% of the population will develop a peptic ulcer. Despite major advancements in the approach to peptic ulcer bleeding over the last 10-20 years including newer endoscopic hemostatic techniques and the advent of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to peptic ulcers results in substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. Both oral and intravenous PPIs have proven to be effective in preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers. However, the dosing and administration of PPIs have been a source of ongoing debate, specifically in relation to cost. In this issue of the Journal, Lu et al. perform cost analysis demonstrating that costs from bleeding peptic ulcers are influenced more by efficient triage and discharge of patients than the nuances of variations in administration of intravenous PPI's.

Cardiovascular risks of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional anti-inflammatory drugs: necessary but not sufficient for clinical decision making.

Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors were initially developed, then received regulatory approval and were subsequently widely marketed to achieve effective pain relief in patients with inflammatory conditions while decreasing gastrointestinal complications. Gastrointestinal symptoms as well as signs had been a major concern with the use of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Individual clinical judgements about the prescription of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for relief of pain from inflammatory arthritis should not be limited to risks of cardiovascular disease but should also consider gastrointestinal complications, symptoms as well as signs, and other benefits which include, but are not limited to improvements in quality of life resulting from decreases in pain or impairment from musculoskeletal pain syndromes.

Documentation of competency on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

There is general consensus in national and societal guidelines that training for sedation should be part of basic training for endoscopy. There is no clear consensus, however, on the structure of that training. More importantly, these same guidelines are often silent on the specific requirements to demonstrate competency for administration of sedation, ways to document that competency and measures to assure that competency is maintained. In the absence of data demonstrating improved outcomes with specific approaches, the process and principles in this paper are proposed as a starting point to be modified by future research and data.

Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is commonly performed to remove bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to determine short-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi compared with sphincterotomy for stone extraction. METHODS: A randomized, controlled multicenter study of 117 patients assigned to dilation and 120 to sphincterotomy was performed in a spectrum of clinical and academic practices. RESULTS: Characteristics of the patients, procedures, and endoscopists were similar except that dilation patients were younger. Procedures were successful in 97.4% and 92.5% of the dilation and sphincterotomy patients, respectively. Overall morbidity occurred in 17.9% and 3.3% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7-22.3) and severe morbidity, including 2 deaths, in 6.8% and 0%( P < .004; difference, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4) for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively. Complications for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively, included: pancreatitis, 15.4% and .8% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7.8-21.3); cystic duct fistula, 1.7% and 0%; cholangitis, .9% and .8%; perforation, 0% and .8%; and cholecystitis, 0% and .8%. There were 2 deaths (1.7%) due to pancreatitis following dilation and none with sphincterotomy. The study was terminated at the first interim analysis. Dilation patients required significantly more invasive procedures, longer hospital stays, and longer time off from normal activities. CONCLUSIONS: In a broad spectrum of patients and practices, endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for biliary stone extraction is associated with increased short-term morbidity rates and death due to pancreatitis. Balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi for stone extraction should be avoided in routine practice.

Urgent vs. elective endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper-GI bleeding: an effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Urgent endoscopy in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding identifies many patients who may be safely treated without hospitalization. The aim of this multicenter trial was to determine whether urgent endoscopy effectively decreases health care resource utilization in a real-life setting where primary care providers determine the course of care. METHODS: Ninety-three outpatients with acute upper-GI bleeding were randomized to either urgent endoscopy (before hospitalization) or elective endoscopy after admission. The results of urgent endoscopy and a recommendation regarding patient disposition were provided to the attending physician. Medical outcomes and resource utilization were measured. RESULTS: The timing of endoscopy did not affect resource utilization or patient outcomes. Length of stay was similar (urgent endoscopy, OR 3.98 days: 95% CI[2.84, 5.11] vs. elective endoscopy, OR 3.26 days: 95% CI[2.32, 4.21], p=0.45). The mean number of days in an intensive care unit was the same (1.2 days). The urgent endoscopy group had more high-risk endoscopic lesions (15 vs. 9; p=0.031). Outpatient care was recommended for 19 patients (40%). Only 4 patients were discharged. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent endoscopy did not reduce hospitalization or resource utilization because the results of early endoscopy did not impact the decision by attending physicians regarding admission. For early (triage) endoscopy to impact resource utilization, the results of endoscopy must change subsequent patient care.

The efficacy of oral 5-ASAs in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review.

The authors set out to critically review the current data on the efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents for active ulcerative colitis (UC). Thirty-one studies were identified; 19 met entry criteria. Three trials with mesalamine showed statistical significance versus placebo; those with olsalazine or balsalazide did not. No agent was statistically different from sulfasalazine. In 2 of 3 trials of balsalazide versus mesalamine, results for defined primary and secondary endpoints failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences. Studies suggest that mesalamine is superior to placebo for treating active UC. Five-ASA products appear to be as effective as sulfasalazine, but available data do not suggest a difference in efficacy between any of the 5-ASA preparations.