Exploring the intersection: Peptic ulcers and hemolysis-Unraveling the complex relationship.

This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between peptic ulcers and hemolysis, 2 seemingly distinct medical conditions, aiming to unravel their potential interconnections and clinical implications. While traditionally studied in isolation, recent evidence has surfaced suggesting possible links and shared mechanisms between these conditions. This paper explores the underlying pathophysiological associations, shared risk factors, diagnostic challenges, management strategies, and implications for clinical practice and health policy. The interplay between peptic ulcers and hemolysis stems from shared inflammatory pathways, notably attributed to Helicobacter pylori infection in peptic ulcers, which might trigger systemic inflammatory responses contributing to hemolysis. Common risk factors including genetic predispositions, autoimmune disorders, and medication use (such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are implicated in the development of both peptic ulcers and hemolytic conditions, suggesting a potential convergence of these disorders in affected individuals. Diagnostic considerations pose challenges, as overlapping symptoms and laboratory findings may complicate accurate differentiation between peptic ulcers and hemolysis. Recognizing the potential interplay between peptic ulcers and hemolysis holds significant implications for clinical practice and health policy. Streamlining diagnostic algorithms, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, and developing tailored guidelines are pivotal in optimizing patient care. Continued research efforts, collaborative clinical approaches, and informed health policies are essential in advancing our understanding and enhancing patient care for individuals navigating the intersection of peptic ulcers and hemolysis.

Assessing peptic ulcer risk with the HAMPROW score in the general Chinese population.

The timely identification of individuals at high risk for peptic ulcers (PUs) is vital in preventing gastrointestinal bleeding after antiplatelet therapy. This study was designed to determine PU risk factors and develop a risk assessment model for PU detection in the general Chinese population. In a prospective dataset, clinical data from individuals undergoing gastroscopic evaluation between April 2019 and May 2022 were recorded. PUs were defined as mucosal defects exceeding 5 mm confirmed via gastroscopy. Participants were categorized into development (April 2019 to April 2021) and validation (May 2021 to May 2022) sets based on chronological order. LASSO-derived logistic regression analysis was employed to create a score, which was further validated via temporal validation. A total of 902 patients were ultimately enrolled, 204 (22.6%) of whom had PUs based on endoscopic findings. In the development cohort (n = 631), seven independent risk factors emerged: male sex (OR = 2.35, P = 0.002), white blood cell (WBC) count (OR = 1.16, P = 0.010), red blood cell (RBC) count (OR = 0.49, P < 0.001), globulin level (OR = 0.92, P = 0.004), albumin level (OR = 0.94, P = 0.020), pepsinogen I (PGI) level (OR = 1.01, P < 0.001), and positive Helicobacter pylori (HP) antibody (OR = 2.50, P < 0.001). Using these factors, a nomogram (HAMPROW score [hazard ratio (HP) antibody, albumin, male, PGI, RBC, globulin, and WBC]) was developed for individual PU prediction. The ability of the HAMPROW score to predict survival was confirmed with AUCs of 0.854 (95% CI 0.816-0.891) and 0.833 (95% CI 0.771-0.895) in the development and validation sets, respectively. In conclusion, the HAMPROW score can be used to screen for PUs effectively in the general Chinese population, facilitating personalized early detection of high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding before antiplatelet therapy.

Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

Epinephrine injection monotherapy shows similar hemostatic efficacy to epinephrine injection combined therapy in high-risk patients (Forrest Ib) with bleeding ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Whether combination therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy in different Forrest classifications is not clear. This study aimed to compare hemostatic efficacy between epinephrine injection monotherapy (MT) and combination therapy (CT) based on different Forrest classifications. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients who underwent endoscopic epinephrine injections or epinephrine injections combined with a second therapy between March 2014 and June 2022 in our center, and the patients were divided into MT group or CT group. Subsequently, a propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was performed and rebleeding rates were calculated according to Forrest classifications via a stratified analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 605 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included, and after PSM, 173 patients in each of the CT and MT groups were included. For PUB patients with nonbleeding visible vessels (FIIa), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 8.8%, 17.5%, 19.3%, and 19.3% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 0%, 4.1%, 5.5%, and 5.5% in the CT group, respectively, with significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.015, P = 0.011, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). However, for PUB patients with oozing bleeding (FIb), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 14.9%, 16.2%, 17.6%, and 17.6% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 13.2%, 14.7%, 14.7%, and 16.2% in the CT group, respectively, with no significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.78, P = 0.804, P = 0.644 and P = 0.825). CONCLUSION: Combined therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy for PUB patients with visible blood vessel (FIIa) ulcers. However, epinephrine injection monotherapy is equally as effective as combined therapy for PUB patients with oozing blood (FIb) ulcers.

[Recent aspects of pharmaceutical and endoscopic treatment of acute gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding]. / Az akut gastroduodenalis fekélyvérzés gyógyszeres és endoszkópos kezelésének újabb szempontjai.

Acute gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding is a life-threatening condition. Management of the acute gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding requires the cooperation of different specialists. The complex management program includes the immediate control of the hemodynamic status, transfusion and gastric acid inhibition therapy, endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and occasionally the invasive radiological interventions and surgery. According to the recent guidelines, pre-endoscopic parenteral proton-pump inhibitor therapy is recommended only for consideration. Urgent endoscopy (≤12 hours after admission) has no advantage to the early endoscopic (≤24 hours after admission) strategy. For ulcers with high rebleeding risk due to more than 2 cm in diameter, fibrotic base or wide visible vessel, the use of the "over-the-scope clip" is advisable even as a first-line endoscopic hemostatic therapy. Intermittent high-dose parenteral proton-pump inhibitor therapy is a new therapeutical option after endoscopic hemostasis. In patients with acute gastroduodenal bleeding who are taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted, while low dose aspirin administered for primary prophylaxis may be stopped. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(23): 883-890.

Urea Breath Testing to Detect Helicobacter pylori in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Bleeding During Proton Pump Inhibitor Treatment.

This was a descriptive study carried out from January to December 2021, at Quanzhou First Hospital, an affiliated hospital of Fujian Medical University, to investigate the efficacy of the urea breath test in detecting Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding affected with proton pump inhibitors. A total of 77 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, who underwent urea breath testing after active bleeding, were divided into two groups. The Helicobacter pylori infection positivity rate in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding was 66.2%. The time from bleeding to detection and from admission to detection was not significantly different between the Helicobacter pylori-positive and -negative groups (p=0.840 and 0.285, respectively). Even with high-dose proton pump inhibitor treatment, a urea breath test can be performed after peptic ulcer bleeding ceases and results in an acceptable positivity rate. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of Helicobacter pylori detection between the time from bleeding to testing and from admission to testing. Key Words: Peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori, Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Urea breath test, Proton pump inhibitor.

Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hemostatic powders have been clinically used in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding. We investigated the non-inferiority of a polysaccharide hemostatic powder (PHP), compared with conventional endoscopic treatments, for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). METHODS: This study was a prospective multi-center, randomized, open-label, controlled trial at 4 referral institutions. We consecutively enrolled patients who had undergone emergency endoscopy for PUB. The patients were randomly assigned to either a PHP or conventional treatment group. In the PHP group, diluted epinephrine was injected, and the powder was applied as a spray. Conventional endoscopic treatment included the use of electrical coagulation or hemoclipping after injection of diluted epinephrine. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and May 2021, 216 patients were enrolled in this study (PHP group, 105; control group, 111). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 92 of 105 patients (87.6%) in the PHP group and 96 of 111 patients (86.5%) in the conventional treatment group. Re-bleeding did not differ between the 2 groups. In subgroup analysis, the initial hemostasis failure rate in the conventional treatment group was 13.6% for Forrest IIa cases; however, there was no initial hemostasis failure in the PHP group (P = .023). Large ulcer size (≥15 mm) and chronic kidney disease with dialysis were independent risk factors for re-bleeding at 30 days. No adverse events were associated with PHP use. CONCLUSIONS: PHP is not inferior to conventional treatments and could be useful in initial endoscopic treatment for PUB. Further studies are needed to confirm the re-bleeding rate of PHP. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02717416).

An extended 36-week oral esomeprazole improved long-term recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in patients at high risk of rebleeding.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Rockall scores ≥6 have an increased risk of long-term peptic ulcer rebleeding. This study was aimed toward investigating whether an extended course of oral esomeprazole up to 1 year decreased ulcer rebleeding in such patients. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 120 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and Rockall scores ≥6. After an initial 16-week oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment, patients were randomized to receive a 36-week course of oral twice-daily esomeprazole 20 mg (Group D, n = 60) or once-daily (Group S, n = 60). Thereafter, they were divided into the PPI-on-demand (n = 32) and PPI-discontinued (n = 77) subgroups. Our previous cohort with Rockall scores ≥6 served as the controls (Group C, n = 135); they received only an initial 8- to 16-week oral PPI. The primary and secondary outcomes were peptic ulcer rebleeding during the first year and the second year-and-thereafter, respectively. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, groups D and S comprised a higher proportion of rebleeding-free than Group C (P = 0.008 and 0.03, log-rank test). The competing-risks regression analysis confirmed that extended PPI use and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification were independent factors contributing to the primary outcome. For the secondary outcome, PPI-on-demand had a borderline higher proportion of rebleeding-free than Group C (P = 0.07, log-rank test); however, only the Rockall score was the independent factor. CONCLUSIONS: An extended 36-week course of oral esomeprazole 20 mg, twice- or once-daily for patients with Rockall scores ≥6 reduced ulcer rebleeding during the first year, but the effect needed to be further validated when PPIs were shifted to on-demand or discontinued thereafter (NCT02456012, 28/05/2015).

Nomogram for predicting rebleeding after initial endoscopic epinephrine injection monotherapy hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although the current guidelines recommend endoscopic combination therapy, endoscopic epinephrine injection (EI) monotherapy is still a simple, common and effective modality for treating peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). However, the rebleeding risk after EI monotherapy is still high, and identifying rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy is unclear, which is highly important in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify risk factors and constructed a predictive nomogram related to rebleeding after EI monotherapy. METHODS: We consecutively and retrospectively analyzed 360 PUB patients who underwent EI monotherapy between March 2014 and July 2021 in our center. Then we identified independent risk factors associated with rebleeding after initial endoscopic EI monotherapy by multivariate logistic regression. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated based on the above predictors. RESULTS: Among all PUB patients enrolled, 51 (14.2%) had recurrent hemorrhage within 30 days after endoscopic EI monotherapy. After multivariate logistic regression, shock [odds ratio (OR) = 12.691, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.129-31.399, p < 0.001], Rockall score (OR = 1.877, 95% CI 1.250-2.820, p = 0.002), tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) (OR = 2.610, 95% CI 1.098-6.203, p = 0.030), prolonged prothrombin time (PT > 13 s) (OR = 2.387, 95% CI 1.019-5.588, p = 0.045) and gastric ulcer (OR = 2.258, 95% CI 1.003-5.084, p = 0.049) were associated with an increased risk of rebleeding after an initial EI monotherapy treatment. A nomogram incorporating these independent high-risk factors showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.876 (95% CI 0.817-0.934) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a predictive nomogram of rebleeding after EI monotherapy, which had excellent prediction accuracy. This predictive nomogram can be conveniently used to identify low-risk rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy, allowing for decision-making in a clinical setting.

Effects of high-dose versus low-dose proton pump inhibitors for treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of high-dose (80 mg/day) versus low-dose (40 mg/day) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We retrieved studies of randomized controlled trials of PPIs administered according to different schedules for the treatment of gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database in April 2020. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials including 2329 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the incidences of re-bleeding, operation intervention, postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay between the low-dose and high-dose groups. However, the blood transfusion volume was significantly higher in the high-dose group. CONCLUSION: Compared with low-does PPIs, high-dose PPIs had no effect on the incidence of re-bleeding, operation intervention, or postoperative mortality, and did not reduce hospital stay in patients treated with endoscopic hemostasis for gastrointestinal bleeding.

Use of topical mineral powder as monotherapy for treatment of active peptic ulcer bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a hemostatic powder, as monotherapy for active peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with Forrest Ia or Ib peptic ulcers underwent endoscopic application of Hemospray as treatment of first intent. Effectiveness endpoints were successful hemostasis at the end of the index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding within 72 hours and from 72 hours to 30 days, adverse events requiring reintervention or resulting in morbidity or mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Hemospray was successfully administered in 98.5% of patients (66/67). Hemostasis was achieved at the index endoscopy in 90.9% of patients (60/66) with Hemospray alone and in an additional 4 patients treated with additional modalities, yielding an overall hemostasis rate of 97.0% (64/66). Rebleeding occurred in 13.3% of patients (8/60), 5 within 72 hours and 3 between 72 hours and 30 days. Two cases of perforation and 2 patient deaths occurred during the study, but none of these cases or any other adverse events were attributed to the use of Hemospray. The rate of early rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers compared with patients with Forrest Ib ulcers. Higher rates of early bleeding in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers is consistent with results from studies where Hemospray was used as rescue after failure of conventional methods. CONCLUSIONS: Hemospray is an effective initial treatment for patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, but care should be taken to monitor for recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01306864.).

Cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of intermittent/continuous proton pump inhibitors infusion in high bleeding risk of ulcers: A retrospective observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, including patient prognosis and medication expense, of proton pump inhibitors administered by high-dose continuous infusion (HDC, 80 mg loading dose, then 8 mg/h for 72 hours) or non-high-dose intermittent infusion (NHDI, 40 mg qd or 40 mg q12 h, for 3 days) regimens in high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.In this retrospective cohort study, patients with peptic ulcers and endoscopic hemostasis between January, 2013 and December, 2015 were included. The primary endpoints were rebleeding and mortality rates within 7 days. The secondary endpoints were length of stay (LOS), transfusion units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), and the number needed to treat.A total of 335 patients met the inclusion criteria during the 3-year follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of rebleeding within 7 days was 20.4% and 11.2% in the HDC and NHDI groups, respectively, with a significant difference (P = .021). The mortality rate was 12.1% and 7.3% in the HDC and NHDI groups, respectively, with no significant difference (P = .136). Univariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that the risk of rebleeding within 7 days in the HDC group was higher than that in the NHDI group. The hazard ratio for HDC vs. NHDI was 1.93 (P = .021). There were significant differences in LOS (P = .034) and PRBC units (P = .005) for risk of rebleeding within 7 days, as well as in transfusion units of PRBCs for mortality rate analysis (p < 0.001), between the HDC and NHDI groups. The results showed that the NHDI regimen could reduce the risk of rebleeding within 7 days in 1 of 11 patients (number needed to treat = 11) and could reduce medication cost by US$ 400 to 800.The NHDI regimen showed a lower risk of rebleeding within 7 days, shorter LOS, and fewer PRBC units than that of the HDC regimen. Receiving NHDI has better cost-effective outcomes than that of HDC for patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

Comparison of high and low-dose epinephrine & endoclip application in peptic ulcer bleeding: A case series analysis observational study.

ABSTRACT: Peptic ulcer disease accounts for 50% to 70% of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. There is no consensus on the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) using endoscopic techniques. This study aimed to compare endoscopic techniques for PUB.Patients with PUB who were hospitalized between January 2014 and June 2020 were included in this study. They were divided into 3 groups: endoclip and low-dose epinephrine injection (0-2 mg, Group 1, n = 62), endoclip and high-dose epinephrine injection (2-4 mg, Group 2, n = 54), and endoclip only (Group 3, n = 64).Early bleeding and permanent hemostasis were higher in Group 2 (P = .014, .035). When evaluated in terms of late hemostasis and urgent surgical need, there was no significant difference between the groups (P > .05). Group 2 received a higher amount of blood. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 16.5%, 22.2%, and 9.4% of patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 2 had a longer hospital stay than Groups 1 and 3 (P = .008). The endoscopic success rates were 80.6%, 72.2%, and 90.6% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively.In PUB, if the patient's Rockall score is high and the ulcer size is larger than 2 cm, endoclip application can be used as the main treatment. Addition of epinephrine may be considered when necessary.

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.

Efficacy of hemostatic powders as monotherapy or rescue therapy in gastrointestinal bleeding related to neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Hemostatic powder (HP) in gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is mainly used as rescue therapy after failure of conventional hemostatic procedures (CHP). AIM: To define the best field of application and the efficacy of HP as first choice monotherapy or rescue therapy. METHODS: We compared the efficacy of HP monotherapy, HP rescue therapy, and CHP in the management of active GIB due to neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients, 43 treated with HP as either first choice or rescue therapy and 65 with CHP, were included in the study. The most frequent sources of bleeding were peptic ulcer and malignancy. Immediate hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 100% in peptic ulcer and 100% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 93.2% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 77.9% in peptic ulcer and 41.7 in malignancy. Definitive hemostasis rates were: HP monotherapy = 50% in peptic ulcer and 45.5% in malignancy; HP rescue therapy = 73.3% in peptic ulcer and 85.7% in malignancy; CHP = 69.1% in peptic ulcer and 33.3% in malignancy. No difference was found in terms of additional intervention between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: HP is highly effective as monotherapy and rescue therapy in GIB. GIB related to malignancy may be the best field of application of HP, but confirmatory studies are necessary.

Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors May Be as Effective as Intravenous in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral and IV administration of PPIs in PUB. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in 4 databases for randomized controlled trials, which compared the outcomes of oral PPI therapy with IV PPI therapy for PUB. The primary outcomes were 30-day recurrent bleeding and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, while weighted mean differences (WMDs) with CI were calculated for continuous outcomes in meta-analysis. The protocol was registered a priori onto PROSPERO (CRD42020155852). RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized controlled trials reported 1,951 peptic ulcer patients, 977 and 974 of which were in the control and intervention groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between oral and IV administration regarding 30-day rebleeding rate (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.65-1.44); 30-day mortality (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.35-1.40); length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.25, CI: -0.93 to -0.42); transfusion requirements (WMD = -0.09, CI: -0.07 to 0.24); need for surgery (OR = 0.91, CI: 0.40-2.07); further endoscopic therapy (OR = 1.04, CI: 0.56-1.93); and need for re-endoscopy (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.52-1.28). Heterogeneity was negligible in all analysis, except for the analysis on the length of hospitalization (I2 = 82.3%, P = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Recent evidence suggests that the oral administration of PPI is not inferior to the IV PPI treatment in PUB after endoscopic management, but further studies are warranted.

Intravenous versus oral omeprazole on patients with high risk bleeding peptic ulcers: A prospective randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) decrease the rate of rebleeding following endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compares the efficacy of oral omeprazole vs intravenous omeprazole in decrease of rebleeding of peptic ulcer patients. METHOD: The present study was authorized by the local research ethics committee of Jiangjin District Central Hospital (2020120987) and informed consent was obtained from all patients. All adult patients who were admitted to medical emergency rooms of Jiangjin District Central Hospital due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding (as evidenced by hematemesis, melena or hematochezia) were considered for inclusion in the study. Endoscopy was performed within 24 hours after admission. Patients older than 18 years with successful endoscopic therapy of high risk ulcers [defined as active bleeding (Forrest IA, IB), non-bleeding visible vessel (NBVV, Forrest IIA) or adherent clots (Forrest IIB)] were enrolled. Patients with low risk ulcers (clean base, ulcers with a simple washable clot), suspicious malignant ulcer, bleeding tendency, uremia, liver cirrhosis, Mallory Weiss tear or already on PPI as an outpatient were excluded from study. All were managed endoscopically by injecting 5-30 ml of epinephrine (diluted 1:10000) around the ulcer crater. Cavitations or flattening of bleeding vessel and disappearance of NBVV was considered as established homeostasis. A biopsy was taken from antrum for evaluating Helicobacter pylori infection. Patient with unsuccessful endoscopic therapy were not enrolled and were referred to general surgeon. Information on demography, history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NSAID or ASA ingestion, ulcer location, bleeding stigmata and blood transfusion volume at entry were recorded in all patients. In the oral omeprazole group, the patients received 40 mg omeprazole orally twice daily for 72 hours. In intravenous omeprazole group, they received omeprazole 80 mg bolus and then 8 mg/hour infusion for 48-72 hours. Then, all patients received omeprazole 20 mg orally for 30 days. On the day of discharge Helicobacter pylori infected patients received standard regimens. RESULTS: Figure 1 showed the primary and secondary end points. DISCUSSION: Intravenous administration of PPIs has limitations. They are expensive, require a dedicated intravenous line, need nursing supervision and hospital admission. So, it would be reasonable to prescribe oral PPIs to patients with high risk bleeding ulcers provided that it is as effective as its intravenous counterpart. Oral PPIs have a high bioavailability. Its effect initiates one hour after ingestion and the maximal plasma concentration is achieved after 2-3 hours. However, there are few studies comparing oral and intravenous PPI in decreasing risk of rebleeding in peptic ulcer patients. More high quality randomized controlled trials are still necessary. REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry 6588.

High-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors Are Superior to Standard-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors in High-Risk Patients With Bleeding Ulcers and High-Risk Stigmata After Endoscopic Hemostasis.

INTRODUCTION: To define the best cutoff of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) for identifying high- and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis and compare the efficacy of high-dose and standard-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (HD-IVPs and SD-IVPs, respectively) in this patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 346 patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who underwent endoscopic hemostasis between March 2014 and September 2018 in our center and were divided into an HD-IVP group and an SD-IVP group. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed to control for selection bias and other potential confounders. Recurrent bleeding rates were calculated according to the GBS. RESULTS: Overall, 346 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled, with 89 patients in the SD-IVP group and 89 patients in the HD-IVP group after matching with all baseline characteristics balanced (P > 0.05). GBS = 8 was the best cutoff for identifying high-risk rebleeding patients (GBS ≥ 8) with a significant difference (P = 0.015) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (17/61, 27.9%) and HD-IVP (7/65, 10.8%) groups and low-risk rebleeding patients (GBS < 8) with no difference (P = 1) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (2/28, 7.1%) and HD-IVP (2/24, 8.3%) groups. DISCUSSION: The best cutoff for identifying high-risk and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis was GBS = 8. Although HD-IVP is more effective than SD-IVP in high-risk patients, they are equally effective in low-risk patients.