In older patients receiving aspirin, H pylori eradication reduced hospitalization or death due to peptic ulcer bleeding at 2.5 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Hawkey C, Avery A, Coupland CAC, et al; HEAT trialists. Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2022;400:1597-1606. 36335970.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders. METHODS: This was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of -0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled). RESULTS: 100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions. CONCLUSION: The routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03160911.

Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). INTERPRETATION: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

Comparison of proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), followed by histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), are the most commonly used drugs to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients through stress ulcer prophylaxis. The relative efficacy and drug-related adverse events of PPIs and H2RAs remain unclear. In this retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study, PPIs and H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients were compared using a common data model. After propensity matching, 935 patients from each treatment group (PPI or H2RA) were selected. The PPI group had a significantly higher 90-day mortality than the H2RA group (relative risk: 1.28; P = 0.01). However, no significant inter-group differences in the risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding were observed. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the groups concerning the risk of pneumonia or Clostridioides difficile infection, which are known potential adverse events related to these drugs. Subgroup analysis of patients with high disease severity were consistent with those of the total propensity score-matched population. These findings do not support the current recommendations, which prefer PPIs for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Transarterial Embolization for High-Risk Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease.

The present systematic review determined the role of transarterial embolization (TAE) as a prophylactic treatment in bleeding peptic ulcers after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched from inception until July 2019 for studies that included patients deemed high-risk based on Forrest Classification, Rockall score ≥ 5, or endoscopic evaluation in addition to those who underwent prophylactic TAE after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis. Meta-analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent endoscopic therapy (ET) and TAE with those who underwent ET alone. The primary outcomes measured included rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures evaluated length of hospitalization, technical success rates, and complications associated with TAE. Of 916 publications, 5 were eligible for inclusion; 310 patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding underwent prophylactic TAE, and 255 were compared against a control group of 580 patients that underwent standard treatment with ET alone. Patients who underwent ET with TAE had lower 30-day rebleeding rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.85; P = .02; I2 = 50%). The ET with TAE group had a lower 30-day mortality rate (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.83; P = .02; I2 = 58%). There was no difference in pooled reintervention rates (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08; P = .10; I2 = 0%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.32; 95% CI, -1.88 to 1.24; P = .69; I2 = 0%). Technical success rate of prophylactic TAE was 90.5% (95% CI, 83.09-97.98; I2 = 75.9%). Pooled proportion of overall complication rate was 0.18% (95% CI, 0.00-1.28; I2 = 0%). Prophylactic TAE has lower rebleeding and mortality with a good success rate and low complications. Prophylactic TAE after primary ET may be recommended for selected patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers; however, further studies should be performed to establish this as a routine tool in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

Proton pump inhibitor use among patients at risk of peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors reduce the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding in patients at risk. The knowledge about the extent of gastroprotection in patients at increased risk and factors associated with prophylactic treatment is limited. AIMS: (1) to analyze the extent of gastroprotective undertreatment in patients using aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and (2) to analyze which patient characteristics are associated with proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis among those at increased ulcer bleeding risk. METHODS: A Danish nationwide register-based study. Based on a risk stratification model we identified citizens at increased ulcer bleeding risk and analyzed the proportion concomitantly treated with proton pump inhibitors. Further, we analyzed associations between use of ulcer prophylaxis and comorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Some 44.4% of the high-risk patients were concomitantly treated with proton pump inhibitors. In the crude analyses cohabiting, having a high educational level and a high income were significantly associated with lower odds of being treated with proton pump inhibitors. When adjusting for medication use, age, sex and comorbidity the associations were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in the extent of ulcer prophylaxis but no clear social gradient in under prescribing of gastroprotection. With the substantial risk-reducing possibility concomitant proton pump inhibitor use could save numerous patients from ulcer bleeding each year. Our study calls for increased awareness of peptic ulcer bleeding risk and dissemination of knowledge to clinicians about risk factors for gastrointestinal hemorrhage and the risk reducing potential of co-prescribing proton pump inhibitors to patients at risk.

The role of endoscopic doppler probe in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Forrest classification for ulceration has significant intra and inter-observer variability. The endoscopic doppler probe (DOP-US) identifies arterial blood flow at the base to direct therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of the DOP-US in bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to December 2019, evaluating the use of DOP-US in peptic ulcer bleeding. Primary outcomes were the comparison of rebleeding rate, mortality, and surgical intervention in patients with DOP-US signal-guided therapy versus standard visual evaluation guided therapy. RESULTS: Eight studies were included after a thorough search was concluded using the key words. The use of DOP-US probe decreases rebleeding, mortality, and surgical intervention as compared to Forrest Classification. The risk of rebleeding is significantly higher if the signal persists despite endoscopic therapy (48.5% (95% CI 29.5-67.9%)). CONCLUSION: The first systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the DOP-US is a beneficial tool in the management of bleeding ulcers and adds valuable information to visual evaluation.

Prevention of recurrent idiopathic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding: a double-blind, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with a history of Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers have a considerable risk of recurrent ulcer complications. We hypothesised that a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole) is superior to a histamine 2 receptor antagonist (famotidine) for the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in such patients. DESIGN: In this industry-independent, double-blind, randomised trial, we recruited patients with a history of idiopathic bleeding ulcers. After ulcer healing, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive oral lansoprazole 30 mg or famotidine 40 mg daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper GI bleeding within 24 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population as determined by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, we enrolled 228 patients (114 patients in each study group). Recurrent upper GI bleeding occurred in one patient receiving lansoprazole (duodenal ulcer) and three receiving famotidine (two gastric ulcers and one duodenal ulcer). The cumulative incidence of recurrent upper GI bleeding in 24 months was 0.88% (95% CI 0.08% to 4.37%) in the lansoprazole arm and 2.63% (95% CI 0.71% to 6.91%) in the famotidine arm (p=0.313; crude HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.16, p=0.336). None of the patients who rebled used aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or other antithrombotic drugs. CONCLUSION: This 2-year, double-blind randomised trial showed that among patients with a history of H. pylori-negative idiopathic ulcer bleeding, recurrent bleeding rates were comparable between users of lansoprazole and famotidine, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01180179; Results.

Benefit of an electronic medical record-based alarm in the optimization of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has risen in recent years, even in patients without a clear indication for therapy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based alarm to improve appropriate SUP use in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study comparing SUP prescription in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and non-ICU patients, before and after the implementation of an EMR-based alarm that provided the correct indications for SUP. RESULTS: 1627 patients in the pre-intervention and 1513 patients in the post-intervention cohorts were included. The EMR-based alarm improved appropriate (49.6% vs. 66.6%, p<0.001) and reduced inappropriate SUP use (50.4% vs. 33.3%, p<0.001) in ICU patients only. These differences were related to the optimization of SUP in low risk patients. There was no difference in overt gastrointestinal bleeding between the two cohorts. Unjustified costs related to SUP were reduced by a third after EMR-based alarm use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an EMR-based alarm improved appropriate and reduced inappropriate use of SUP in ICU patients. This benefit was limited to optimization in low risk patients and associated with a decrease in SUP costs.

Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.

Role of mucoprotective agents in endoscopic submucosal dissection-derived ulcers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Currently, it is still unclear whether adding a mucoprotective agent to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) results in better outcomes compared with using a PPI alone in patients with post-gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) ulcers. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of PPI alone versus combination treatment in healing of post-gastric ESD ulcers, as well as on delayed bleeding and amount of blood transfused. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, up until May 2017, for randomized trials comparing PPI alone versus PPI plus a mucoprotective drug in achieving ulcer healing in patients undergoing gastric ESD was performed. The primary outcome is scarring stage on endoscopic assessment at 4 or 8 weeks after gastric ESD. RESULTS: From an initial 3071 citations, eight articles (n = 953 lesions from 934 patients) were analyzed. Patients receiving combination treatment achieved a scarring stage significantly more often than those on a PPIs alone at 4 or 8 weeks after ESD, (risk ratio = 1.36, 95% CI; 1.06-1.75). No study reported amount of blood transfused. There were no significant between treatment-group differences in terms of delayed bleeding (risk ratio = 0.58, 95% CI; 0.17-1.99). Neither location of ulcer nor Helicobacter pylori infection was related to ulcer scarring stage. CONCLUSION: The limited evidences suggested combination treatment may be more effective in accelerating the process of ulcer healing in patients undergoing gastric ESD than the use of PPI alone, but does not appear to alter delayed bleeding risk.

Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class. FINDINGS: We identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0-210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9-2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25-0·29; p<0·0001), symptomatic ulcers (0·25, 0·22-0·29; p<0·0001), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0·40, 0·32-0·50; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (0·85, 0·69-1·04; p=0·11). Larger proportional reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding were observed for PPIs than for other gastroprotectant drugs (PPIs 0·21, 99% CI 0·12-0·36; prostaglandin analogues 0·63, 0·35-1·12; H2RAs 0·49, 0·30-0·80; phet=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (phet=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28-3·72; p<0·0001), with PPIs more effective (5·22, 99% CI 4·00-6·80) than prostaglandin analogues (2·27, 1·91-2·70) and H2RAs (3·80, 3·44-4·20; phet<0·0001). In trials among patients with acute bleeding, gastroprotectants reduced further bleeding (OR 0·68, 95% CI 0·60-0·78; p<0·0001), blood transfusion (0·75, 0·65-0·88; p=0·0003), further endoscopic intervention (0·56, 0·45-0·70; p<0·0001), and surgery (0·72, 0·61-0·84; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (OR 0·90, 0·72-1·11; p=0·31). PPIs had larger protective effects than did H2RAs for further bleeding (phet=0·0107) and blood transfusion (phet=0·0130). INTERPRETATION: Gastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.

INTRODUCTION: the majority of studies of acute gastrointestinal bleeding in children are retrospective, focusing on therapeutic endoscopy. Previous studies performed in adult patients have demonstrated that both scheduled second look endoscopy and high dose continuous omeprazole infusion are effective in the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of these two strategies using esomeprazole for the prevention of rebleeding following primary endoscopic hemostasis in children with peptic ulcers. The main outcome was to assess the rebleeding rate within 30 days after the initial hemostasis. METHODS: consecutive pediatric cases who underwent endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcers were randomized into two treatment groups following hemostasis. The first group received esomeprazole as an intravenous bolus every 12 hours for 72 hours and a routine second look endoscopy within 12-24 hours with endotherapy retreatment in the case of a persistent stigmata of bleeding. The second group received a continuous high dose esomeprazole infusion for 72 hours without endoscopic reassessment unless required due to rebleeding. RESULTS: a total of 63 children were randomized to the second look endoscopy group and 64 to the esomeprazole infusion group. Rebleeding occurred within 30 days in four patients (6.3%) in the first group and in three patients (4.6%) in the second group (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: a pharmaceutical approach using a high dose continuous esomeprazole infusion in children after an initial endoscopic hemostasis has a similar efficacy compared to second look endoscopy and bolus esomeprazole administration for the prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding. Thus, the discomfort of a second endoscopy in children can be avoided and is only recommended for selected high risk cases.