Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers

Mercedes Vergara, Cathy Bennett, Xavier Calvet, Javier P Gisbert, Mercedes Vergara, Cathy Bennett, Xavier Calvet, Javier P Gisbert

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate and the need for surgery in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

Objectives: To determine whether a second procedure improves haemostatic efficacy or patient outcomes or both after epinephrine injection in adults with high-risk bleeding ulcers.

Search methods: For our update in 2014, we searched the following versions of these databases, limited from June 2009 to May 2014: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to May Week 2 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily Update May 22, 2014; Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 22, 2014 (Appendix 1); Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) April 2014 (Appendix 2); and EMBASE 1980 to Week 20 2014 (Appendix 3).

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus a second method. Populations consisted of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers, that is, patients with haemorrhage from peptic ulcer disease (gastric or duodenal) with major stigmata of bleeding as defined by Forrest classification Ia (spurting haemorrhage), Ib (oozing haemorrhage), IIa (non-bleeding visible vessel) and IIb (adherent clot) (Forrest Ia-Ib-IIa-IIb).

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model; risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented for dichotomous data.

Main results: Nineteen studies of 2033 initially randomly assigned participants were included, of which 11 used a second injected agent, five used a mechanical method (haemoclips) and three employed thermal methods.The risk of further bleeding after initial haemostasis was lower in the combination therapy groups than in the epinephrine alone group, regardless of which second procedure was applied (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81). Adding any second procedure significantly reduced the overall bleeding rate (persistent and recurrent bleeding) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). Mortality rates were not significantly different when either method was applied.Rebleeding in the 10 studies that scheduled a reendoscopy showed no difference between epinephrine and combined therapy; without second-look endoscopy, a statistically significant difference was observed between epinephrine and epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, with fewer participants rebleeding in the combined therapy group (nine studies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).For ulcers of the Forrest Ia or Ib type (oozing or spurting), the addition of a second therapy significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.88); this difference was not seen for type IIa (visible vessel) or type IIb (adherent clot) ulcers. Few procedure-related adverse effects were reported, and this finding was not statistically significantly different between groups. Few adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was noted between groups.The addition of a second injected method reduced recurrent and persistent rebleeding rates and surgery rates in the combination therapy group, but these findings were not statistically significantly different. Significantly fewer participants died in the combined therapy group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00).Epinephrine and a second mechanical method decreased recurrent and persistent bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54) and the need for emergency surgery (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect mortality rates.Epinephrine plus thermal methods decreased the rebleeding rate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78) and the surgery rate (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62) but did not affect the mortality rate.Our risk of bias estimates show that risk of bias was low, as, although the type of study did not allow a double-blind trial, rebleeding, surgery and mortality were not dependent on subjective observation. Although some studies had limitations in their design or implementation, most were clear about important quality criteria, including randomisation and allocation concealment, sequence generation and blinding.

Authors' conclusions: Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding and the need for surgery in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcer. The main adverse events include risk of perforation and gastric wall necrosis, the rates of which were low in our included studies and favoured neither epinephrine therapy nor combination therapy. The main conclusion is that combined therapy seems to work better than epinephrine alone. However, we cannot conclude that a particular form of treatment is equal or superior to another.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Cathy Bennett is the proprietor of Systematic Research Ltd, a company that provides research services and is an employee of that company; Dr Bennett received a consultancy fee, as well as travel expenses for travel to work‐related meetings and conferences. Dr Bennett has received consultancy fees for other Cochrane reviews and for her work in evidence‐based medicine. Dr Bennett is a member of the data monitoring committee for the BOSS clinical trial; this work is not related to writing of systematic reviews.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 1 Initial failure of haemostasis (persistent bleeding).
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 2 Recurrent bleeding only (bleeding after initial haemostasis).
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 3 Recurrent and persistent bleeding overall rates with or without second‐look endoscopy.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 4 Recurrent and persistent bleeding and second‐look endoscopy.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 5 Surgery rate.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 6 Mortality rate.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 7 Adverse effects of endoscopy therapy.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and any second endoscopic method, Outcome 8 Recurrent and persistent bleeding according to type of haemorrhage.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and a second injected agent, Outcome 1 Recurrent and persistent bleeding.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and a second injected agent, Outcome 2 Surgery rate.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and a second injected agent, Outcome 3 Mortality rate.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and mechanical endoscopic methods, Outcome 1 Recurrrent and persistent bleeding.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and mechanical endoscopic methods, Outcome 2 Surgery rate.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Epinephrine versus epinephrine and mechanical endoscopic methods, Outcome 3 Mortality rate.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and thermal methods, Outcome 1 Recurrent and persistent bleeding.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and thermal methods, Outcome 2 Surgery rate.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Epinephrine plus epinephrine and thermal methods, Outcome 3 Mortality rate.

References

References to studies included in this review Balanzo 1990 {published data only}

    1. Balanzo J, Villanueva C, Sainz S, Espinos JC, Mendez C, Guarner C, et al. Injection therapy of bleeding peptic ulcer. A prospective randomized trial using epinephrine and thrombin. Endoscopy 1990;22:157‐9. [PUBMED: 2209496]
Choudari 1994 {published data only}
    1. Choudari CP, Palmer KR. Endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a comparison of adrenaline alone with adrenaline plus ethanolamine oleate. Gut 1994;35:608‐10. [PUBMED: 8200551]
Chung 1993 {published data only}
    1. Chung SC, Leung JW, Leong HT, Lo KK, Li AK. Adding a sclerosant to endoscopic epinephrine injection in actively bleeding peptic ulcers: a randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1993;39:611‐5. [PUBMED: 8224679]
Chung 1996 {published data only}
    1. Chung SC, Leong HT, Chab AC, Lau JY, Yung MY, Leung JW, Li AK. Epinephrine or epinephrine plus alcohol for injection of bleeding ulcers: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996;43:591‐5. [PUBMED: 8781939]
Chung 1997 {published data only}
    1. Chung SS, Lau JY, Sung JJ, Chan AC, Lai CW, Ng EK, et al. Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers. BMJ 1997;314:1307‐11. [PUBMED: 9158465]
Chung 1999 {published data only}
    1. Chung IK, Ham JS, Kim HS, Park SH. Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of the endoscopic hemoclip method with hypertonic saline epinephrine injection and a combination of the two for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999;49:13‐8. [PUBMED: 9869717]
Garrido 2002 {published data only}
    1. Garrido A, Guerrero FJ, Perianes C, Arenas FJ, Palomo S. Local therapeutic injection in bleeding peptic ulcer: a comparison of adrenaline to adrenaline plus a sclerosing agent [Inyección local terapeutica en la ulcera gastroduodenal sangrante: estudio comparativo de adrenalina frente adrenalina más agente esclerosante]. Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas 2002;94(7):395‐400. [PUBMED: 12432836]
Grgov 2012 {published data only}
    1. Grgov S, Stamenković P, Janjić D. Comparison of haemostatic efficacy for endoscopic injection therapy of epinephrine and combination therapy of epinephrine and hemoclips for bleeding peptic ulcers. Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 2012; Vol. 140, issue 5‐6:299‐304. [PUBMED: 22826982]
Kubba 1996 {published data only}
    1. Kubba AK, Murphy W, Palmer KR. Endoscopic injection for bleeding peptic ulcer: a comparison of adrenaline alone with adrenaline plus human thrombin. Gastroenterology 1996;111(3):623‐8. [PUBMED: 8780566]
Lee 1997 {published data only}
    1. Lee MH, Jung HY, Yang SK, Kim HR, Homg WS, Min YI. Epinephrine alone versus epinephrine plus ethanol for injection therapy of bleeding peptic ulcers. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1997; Vol. 45:A283.
Lin 1993 {published data only}
    1. Lin MJ, Peung CL, Lee SD. Is sclerosant injection mandatory after an epinephrine injection for arrest of peptic ulcer hemorrhage? A prospective, randomised, comparative study. Gut 1993;34:1182‐5. [PUBMED: 8406150]
Lin 1999 {published data only}
    1. Lin HJ, Tseng GY, Perng CL, Lee FY, Chang FY, Lee SD. Comparison of adrenaline injection and bipolar electrocoagulation for the arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding. Gut 1999;44:715‐9. [PUBMED: 10205211]
Lo 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lo C‐C, Hsu P‐J, Lo G‐H, Lin C‐K, Chan H‐L, Tsai W‐L, et al. Comparison of hemostatic efficacy for epinephrine injection alone and injection combined with hemoclip therapy in treating high‐risk bleeding ulcers. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2006;63(6):767‐73. [PUBMED: 16650535]
Loizou 1991 {published data only}
    1. Loizou LA, Bown SG. Endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcers: randomized comparison of adrenaline injection and adrenaline injection + Nd YAG laser photocoagulation. Gut 1991;32(10):1100‐3. [PUBMED: 1955161]
Park 2004 {published data only}
    1. Park CH, Joo YE, Kim HS, Choi SK, Rew JS, Kim SJ. A prospective, randomized trial comparing mechanical methods of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection to epinephrine injection alone for bleeding peptic ulcer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2004;60(2):173‐9. [PUBMED: 15278040]
Pescatore 2002 {published data only}
    1. Pescatore P, Jormod P, Borovicka J, Pantoflickova D, Suter W, Meyenberger C, et al. Epinephrine versus epinephrine plus fibrin glue injection in peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2002;55(3):348‐53. [PUBMED: 11868007]
Sollano 1991 {published data only}
    1. Sollano SD, Ang VN, Moreno JA. Endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers :1:10000 adrenalin injection vs 1:10000 adrenalin injection vs heater probe. Gastroenterologia Japonica 1991;26(Suppl 3):83‐5. [PUBMED: 1884968]
Villanueva 1993 {published data only}
    1. Villanueva C, Balanzo J, Espinos JC, Fabrega E, Sainz S, Gonzalez D, et al. Endoscopic injection therapy of bleeding ulcer: a prospective and randomized comparison of adrenaline alone or with polidocanol. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 1993;17(3):195‐200. [PUBMED: 8228078]
Villanueva 1996 {published data only}
    1. Villanueva C, Balanzo J, Sabat M, Gallego A, Ortiz J, Soriano G, et al. Injection therapy alone or with endoscopic hemoclip for bleeding peptic ulcer. Preliminary results of a randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996; Vol. 43:A281.
References to studies excluded from this review Buffoli 2001 {published data only}
    1. Buffoli F, Graffeo M, Nicosia F, Gentile C, Cesar P, Rotti F, et al. Peptic ulcer bleeding comparison of two hemostatic procedures. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2001;96:89‐94.
Chittmittrapap 2010 {published data only}
    1. Chittmittrapap S, Limmathurotsakul D, Rerknimitr R, Ridtitid W, Kongkam P, Treeprasertsuk S, et al. A retrospective study comparing the results of argon plasma coagulation versus bipolar probe coaptation as a treatment for high risk peptic ulcer bleeding. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2010; Vol. Conference, issue var.pagings:5.
Chua 2001 {published data only}
    1. Chua TS, Fock KM, Ng TM, Khor JL, Theo EK. Treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers with combination of epinephrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip application. Gastroenterology 2001; Vol. 120:A4370.
Chung 1990 {published data only}
    1. Chung SC, Leung JW, Leung HT, Lo KK, Griffin SM, Li AK. Does adding a sclerosant improve the results of endoscopic epinephrine injection in actively bleeding ulcers? An interim report of a randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1992;38:A21.
Chung 1992 {published data only}
    1. Chung SC, Leong HT, Chan AC, Yung MY, Leung JW, Li AK. Epinephrine or epinephrine plus alcohol for injection of peptic ulcers?. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1992; Vol. 38:A21.
Chung 1997a {published data only}
    1. Chung IK, Kim HS, Park SH, Lee MH, Kim SJ. The comparison of hemostatic efficacy of endoscopic hemoclip, hypertonic saline epinephrine injection and combined method in treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1997;45(4):AB88.
Dedeu 2003 {published data only}
    1. Dedeu JM, Villanueva C, Gomez C, Minana JM, Sola‐Vera J, Gallego A, et al. Endoscopic injection alone or combined with bipolar electrocoagulation for bleeding peptic ulcer. Preliminary results of a prospective and randomized trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003; Vol. 49:A439.
De Goede 1998 {published data only}
    1. Goede E, Gevers AM, Simoens M, Hiele M, Rutgeerts P. Interim results of a randomized trial comparing injection therapy with epinephrine polidocanol 1% versus hemoclip vs injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding ulcers. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1998;53:A234.
Ell 2002 {published data only}
    1. Ell C. Endoclip versus injection therapy in bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers: results of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Gastroenterology 2002; Vol. 122:A1542.
Gevers 2002 {published data only}
    1. Gevers AM, Goede E, Simoens M, Hiele M, Ruteerts P. A randomized trial comparing injection therapy with hemoclip and with injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding ulcers. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2002;55:466‐9.
Grgov 2013 {published data only}
    1. Grgov S, Radovanović‐Dinić B, Tasić T. Could application of epinephrine improve hemostatic efficacy of hemoclips for bleeding peptic ulcers? A prospective randomized study. Vojnosanitetski Pregled: Military Medical & Pharmaceutical Journal of Serbia & Montenegro 2013; Vol. 70, issue 9:824‐9. [0042‐8450]
Karaman 2011 {published data only}
    1. Karaman A, Baskol M, Gursoy S, Torun E, Yurci A, Ozel BD, et al. Epinephrine plus argon plasma or heater probe coagulation in ulcer bleeding. World Journal of Gastroenterology. China: Department of Gastroenterology, Erciyes University, 38030 Kayseri, Turkey. drkaraman@hotmail.com, 2011; Vol. 17, issue 36:4109‐12. [1007‐9327]
Lecleire 2009 {published data only}
    1. Lecleire S, Antonietti M, Iwanicki‐Caron I, Duclos A, Ramirez S, Ben‐Soussan E, et al. Endoscopic band ligation could decrease recurrent bleeding in Mallory‐Weiss syndrome as compared to haemostasis by hemoclips plus epinephrine. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. England: Gastroenterology Department, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen Cedex, France. stephane.lecleire@churouen.fr, 2009; Vol. 30, issue 4:399‐405. [1365‐2036]
Ljubicic 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ljubicic N, Budimir I, Biscanin A, Nikolic M, Supanc V, Hrabar D, et al. Endoclips vs large or small‐volume epinephrine in peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding. World Journal of Gastroenterology. China: Department of Internal Medicine, 'Sestre milosrdnice' University Hospital Center, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. neven.ljubicic@kbcsm.hr, 2012; Vol. 18, issue 18:2219‐24. [1007‐9327]
Male 1999 {published data only}
    1. Male GY, Lin H, Pergn CH, Lee FY, Chang FY, Lee SD. A prospective randomized trial comparing injection of epinephrine alone, bipolar electrocoagulation for the arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999; Vol. 49:A452.
Pescatore 1999 {published data only}
    1. Pescatore P, Jorned P, Borovicka J, Suter W, Delative J, Wissel P, et al. Randomized study of epinephrine versus epinephrine + fibrin injection in peptic ulcer bleeding. interim analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999;49:A448.
Sabat 1998 {published data only}
    1. Sabat M, Villanueva C, Ortiz J, Sainz S, Torras X, Casso X, et al. Final results of a prospective and randomized trial evaluating endoscopic hemoclip for bleeding peptic ulcer. Gastroenterology 1998;114:G1118.
Taghavi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Taghavi SA, Soleimani SM, Hosseini‐Asl SMK, Eshraghian A, Eghbali H, Dehghani SM, et al. Adrenaline injection plus argon plasma coagulation versus adrenaline injection plus hemoclips for treating high‐risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective, randomized trial. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Canada: Gastroenterohepatology Research Centre, Nemazee Hospital, Shiraz, Iran. ataghavi@sums.ac.ir, 2009; Vol. 23, issue 10:699‐704. [0835‐7900]
Tsoi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Tsoi KKF, Chiu PWY, Sung JJY. Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: is routine second‐look necessary?. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 12. Nature Publishing Group (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, United Kingdom), 2009; Vol. 6:717‐22. [1759‐5045]
Wehrmann 1994 {published data only}
    1. Wehrmann T, Fremdling D, Leabcke B, Jong M. Epinephrine plus polidocanol versus epinephrine alone for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer haemorrhage. a prospective, randomized trial. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 1994;6:1033‐8.
Additional references ASGE 2004
    1. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in acute non‐variceal upper GI hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2004;60:497‐504.
British Society 2002
    1. British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee. Non variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage guidelines. Gut 2002;51:1‐6.
Brullet 1996
    1. Brullet E, Calvet X, Campo R, Rue M, Calot L, Donoso L. Factors predicting failure of endoscopic injection therapy in bleeding duodenal ulcer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996;43:111‐6.
Cook 1992
    1. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Salena BJ, Laine LA. Endoscopic therapy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a meta‐analysis. Gastroenterology 1992;102:139‐48.
Cooper 1999
    1. Cooper GS, Chak A, Way LE. Early endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage associations with recurrent bleeding, surgery, and length of hospital stay. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999;49:145‐52.
Feu 2003
    1. Feu F, Brullet E, Calvet X, Fernandez‐Llamazares J, Guardiola J, Moreno P, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute non‐variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterologia y Hepatologia 2003;26:70‐85.
Forrest 1974
    1. Forrest JA, Finlayson ND, Shearman DJ. Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet 1974;2:394‐7.
Gisbert 2001
    1. Gisbert JP, Gonzalez L, Calvet X, Roque M, Gabriel R, Pajares JM. Proton pump inhibitors versus H2 antagonists: a meta‐analysis of their efficacy in treating bleeding peptic ulcer. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2001;15:917‐28.
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539‐58.
Higgins 2008
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane‐.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐.
Hwang 2012
    1. Hwang JH, Fisher DA, Ben‐Menachem T, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi K, Decker GA. The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non‐variceal upper GI bleeding. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Vol. 75, issue 6:1132‐8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.033]
Kovacs 2008
    1. Kovacs TO. Management of gastroduodenal peptic bleeding. Current Gastroenterology Reports 2008;10:535‐42.
Laine 2003
    1. Laine L. Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers:room for improvement?. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003;57:557‐60.
Laine 2009
    1. Laine L, McQuaid KR. Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence‐based approach based on meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2009;7:33‐47.
Laine 2012
    1. Laine L, Jensen DM. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2012;107:345‐60. [DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.480;]
Lin 2002
    1. Lin HJ, Hsleh YH, Tseng GY, Perng GL, Chang FY, Lee SD. A prospective, randomized trial of large‐ versus small‐volume endoscopic injection of epinephrine for peptic ulcer bleeding. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2002;55:615‐9.
Llach 1996
    1. Llach L, Bordas JM, Salmeron JM, Panes J, Garcia Pagan JC, Feu Fet al. A prospective randomized trial of heater probe thermocoagulation versus injection therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996;43:117‐20.
Marmo 2003
    1. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Bianco MA, Piscopo R, Prisco A, Cipolletta L. Outcome of endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding; is a second look necessary? A meta‐analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003;57:62‐7.
NICE 2012
    1. NICE. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: management. NICE clinical guideline 141, June 2012; Vol. .
Peter 2008
    1. Peter S, Wilcox CM. Modern endoscopic therapy of peptic ulcer bleeding. Digestive Diseases 2008;20:291‐9.
Randall 1989
    1. Randall GM, Jensen DM, Hirabayashi K, Machicado GA. Controlled study of different sclerosing agents for coagulation of canine gut arteries. Gastroenterology 1989;96:1274‐81.
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ritgeers 1989
    1. Rutgeerts P, Geobes K, Vantrapen G. Experimental studies of injection therapy for severe nonvariceal bleeding in dogs. Gastroenterology 1989;97:610‐21.
Rollhauser 2000
    1. Rollhauser C, Fleischer DE. Current status of endoscopic therapy for ulcer bleeding. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Gastroenterology 2000;14:391‐410.
Savides 2000
    1. Savides TJ, Jensen DM. Therapeutic endoscopy for nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 2000;29:465‐87.
Simoens 2001
    1. Simoens M, Rutgeerts P. Non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Gastroenterology 2001;15:121‐33.
Spiegel 2003
    1. Spiegel BM, Ofman JJ, Woods K, Vakil NB. Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer haemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis::the cost effectiveness of competing strategies. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2003;98:86‐97.
Yuan 2008
    1. Yuan Y, Wang C, Hunt RH. Endoscopic clipping for acute non variceal for upper GI bleeding: a meta‐analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2008;68(2):339‐51.
References to other published versions of this review Vergara 2007
    1. Vergara M, Calvet X, Gisbert J. Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high risk bleeding ulcer disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005584]

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner