Guía práctica para el manejo de la hemorragia digestiva alta no varicosa / Clinical practice guidelines for managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

La hemorragia digestiva alta no varicosa (HDANV) es una emergencia médica frecuente que se asocia a una considerable morbilidad y mortalidad. En los últimos años se han producido importantes avances en el manejo de la HDANV, que han permitido disminuirla recidiva hemorrágica y la mortalidad en estos pacientes. El objetivo del presente documento es ofrecer una guía de manejo de la HDANV eminentemente práctica basada en la evidencia científica y en las recomendaciones de los recientes consensos. Lostres puntos clave del manejo de la HDANV son: a) la reanimación hemodinámica precozy la prevención de las complicaciones de la patología cardiovascular de base, quees frecuente en pacientes con HDANV; b) el tratamiento endoscópico de las lesiones con alto riesgo de recidiva; y c) el uso de inhibidores de la bomba de protones a dosis altas pre y postendoscopia. La combinación de estas medidas permite reducir la recidiva y la mortalidad de la HDANV (AU)

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency associated with appreciable morbidity and mortality. The significant advances made in managing this condition in recent years have reduced the rates of rebleeding and mortality. These clinical guidelines for managing this emergency are intended to be highly practical, evidence-based, and take recent consensus statements into account. The 3 keys to managing nonvariceal upper GIbleeding are a) early restoration of fluids and blood pressure and the prevention of underlying cardiovascular disease, which is common in these patients; b) endoscopy to treat lesions at high risk of rebleeding; and c) medical therapy with high doses of proton pump inhibitors before and after endoscopy. These 3 measures, used in combination, reduce upperGI rebleeding and mortality rates (AU)

High-dose, ten-day esomeprazole, amoxicillin and metronidazole triple therapy achieves high Helicobacter pylori eradication rates.

BACKGROUND: Strong acid inhibition using esomeprazole increases cure rates with triple therapy and 10-day treatments are more effective than 7-day ones. The combination of amoxicillin plus metronidazole at full doses, and using a physiologically-correct schedule three times a day, and has been shown to overcome metronidazole resistance and to achieve good eradication rates. AIMS: To assess the eradication rate of a new first-line treatment regimen associating strong acid inhibition, amoxicillin and metronidazole and to evaluate tolerance. METHODS: Patients from eight hospitals were included. Helicobacter pylori status was assessed by at least one of the following: histology, culture, rapid urease test or urea breath test (UBT). Ten-day treatment was prescribed comprising esomeprazole 40 mg twice a day plus amoxicillin 1 g and metronidazol 500 mg both three times a day. Helicobacter pylori cure was assessed by UBT. RESULTS: A hundred and thirty-six patients were enrolled. Mean age was 52.6 ± 16 years and 59.6% of patients were men. Main indications for treatment were: uninvestigated dyspepsia (13.6%); functional dyspepsia (18.2%); gastric ulcer (21.8%); and duodenal ulcer (39.8%). Helicobacter pylori eradication was achieved in 112 of the 127 patients who returned for follow-up. Eradication rates were 82.4% (95% CI: 74.7-88.1) by intention-to-treat analysis and 88.2% (95% CI: 81.2-92.8) by per protocol. Treatment was well tolerated and no major side effects were reported. Nine patients complained of mild side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Cure rates of the combination of esomeprazole, amoxicillin and metronidazole are high and the treatment was well tolerated. This pilot study warrants the comparison of this schedule with current standards.

Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer.

BACKGROUND: Determining the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) may be useful for establishing additional haemostatic measures in very high-risk patients. AIM: To identify predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy. METHODS: Bibliographic database searches were performed to identify studies assessing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for PUB. All searches and data abstraction were performed in duplicate. A parameter was considered to be an independent predictor of rebleeding when it was detected as prognostic by multivariate analyses in ≥2 studies. Pooled odds ratios (pOR) were calculated for prognostic variables. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the prespecified inclusion criteria. Pre-endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Haemodynamic instability: significant in 9 of 13 studies evaluating the variable (pOR: 3.30, 95% CI: 2.57-4.24); (ii) Haemoglobin value: significant in 2 of 10 (pOR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.62) and (iii) Transfusion: significant in two of six (pOR not calculable). Endoscopic predictors of rebleeding were: (i) Active bleeding: significant in 6 of 12 studies (pOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.31-2.22); (ii) Large ulcer size: significant in 8 of 12 studies (pOR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.98-4.00); (iii) Posterior duodenal ulcer location: significant in four of eight studies (pOR: 3.83, 95% CI: 1.38-10.66) and (iv) High lesser gastric curvature ulcer location: significant in three of eight studies (pOR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.69-4.86). CONCLUSIONS: Major predictors for rebleeding in patients receiving endoscopic therapy are haemodynamic instability, active bleeding at endoscopy, large ulcer size, ulcer location, haemoglobin value and the need for transfusion. These risk factors may be useful for guiding clinical management in patients with PUB.