Among patients with severe hematochezia and diverticulosis, at least one fifth have definite diverticular hemorrhage. Colonoscopic treatment of such patients with epinephrine injections, bipolar coagulation, or both may prevent recurrent bleeding and decrease the need for surgery.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Few prospective reports describe the short term natural history of colon diverticular hemorrhage based upon stigmata of recent hemorrhage and none include blood flow detection for risk stratification or as a guide to definitive hemostasis. Our purposes are to report the 30 day natural history of definitive diverticular hemorrhage based upon stigmata and to describe Doppler probe blood flow detection and as a guide to definitive hemostasis.
Different cohorts of patients with severe diverticular bleeding and stigmata on urgent colonoscopy are reported. For 30 day natural history, patients were treated medically. If severe rebleeding occurred, they had surgical or angiographic treatment. Natural history with major stigmata (active bleeding, visible vessel, or adherent clot) and no stigmata or flat spots after washing away clots are reported. Doppler probe detection of arterial blood flow underneath stigmata before and after hemostasis is also reported in a recent cohort.
For natural history patients with major stigmata treated medically had 65.8% (25/38) rebleeding rates and 44.7% (17/38) had intervention for hemostasis. Patients with spots or clean bases had no rebleeding. Doppler probe detected arterial blood flow in 92% of major stigmata, none after hemostasis and no one rebled.
1. Patients with major stigmata treated medically had high rates of rebleeding and intervention for hemostasis. 2. Patients with clean diverticula or only flat spots had no rebleeding. 3. High rates of arterial blood flow were detected under major stigmata with Doppler probe but with obliteration by hemostasis no rebleeding occurred.
Most tumors that cause severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding are of a malignant histologic type and are already at an advanced stage. Endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding upper gastrointestinal tumors is safe and initially effective, and may provide time for elective surgical palliation. Regardless of therapy, upper gastrointestinal tumors with severe bleeding have a poor one-year survival.
BACKGROUND & AIMS
For 4 decades, stigmata of recent hemorrhages in patients with non-variceal lesions have been used for risk stratification and endoscopic hemostasis. The arterial blood flow that underlies the stigmata is rarely monitored, but can be used to determine risk for rebleeding. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether Doppler endoscopic probe monitoring of blood flow improves risk stratification and outcomes in patients with severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
In a single-blind study performed at 2 referral centers, we assigned 148 patients with severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (125 with ulcers, 19 with Dieulafoy’s lesions, and 4 with Mallory Weiss tears) to groups that underwent standard, visually guided endoscopic hemostasis (control, n=76) or endoscopic hemostasis assisted by Doppler monitoring of blood flow under the stigmata (n=72). The primary outcome was rate of rebleeding after 30 days; secondary outcomes were complications, death, and need for transfusions, surgery, or angiography.
There was a significant difference in rates of lesion rebleeding within 30 days of endoscopic hemostasis in the control group (26.3%) vs the Doppler group (11.1%) (P=.0214). The odds ratio for rebleeding with Doppler monitoring was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.143–0.8565) and number needed to treat was 7. There were also significant differences in rates of surgery and major complications (5.3% in the control group vs no patients in the Doppler monitoring group for each, P=.048)
In a randomized controlled trial of patients with severe upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage from ulcers or other lesions, Doppler probe-guided endoscopic hemostasis significantly reduced 30 day rates of rebleeding, surgery, and major complications compared to standard, visually guided hemostasis. Guidelines for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding should incorporate these results. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00732212 (CLIN-013-07F)
Background and Aims
For more than 4 decades endoscopists have relied on ulcer stigmata for risk stratification and as a guide to hemostasis. None used arterial blood flow underneath stigmata to predict outcomes. For patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs), we used Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) for: 1. detection of blood flow underlying stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), 2. quantitating rates of residual arterial blood flow under SRH after visually directed standard endoscopic treatment, and 3. comparing risks of rebleeding and actual 30 day rebleed rates for spurting arterial bleeding (Forrest – FIA) and oozing bleeding (FIB).
Prospective cohort study of 163 consecutive patients with severe PUBs and different SRH.
All blood flow detected by DEP was arterial. Detection rates were 87.4% in major SRH - spurting arterial bleeding (FIA), non bleeding visible vessel (FIIA), clot (FIIB) - and significantly lower at 42.3% (p<0.0001) for intermediate group of oozing bleeding (FIB) or flat spot (FIIC). For spurting bleeding (FIA) vs. oozing (FIB), baseline DEP arterial flow was 100% vs. 46.7%; residual blood flow detected after endoscopic hemostasis was 35.7% vs. 0%; and 30 day rebleed rates were 28.6% vs. 0% (all p<0.05).
1. For major SRH vs. oozing or spot, the arterial blood flow detection rates by DEP was significantly higher, indicating a higher rebleed risk. 2. Before and after endoscopic treatment, spurting FIA PUB’s had significantly higher rates of blood flow detection than oozing FIB PUB’s and a significantly higher 30 rebleed rate. 3. DEP is recommended as a new endoscopic guide with SRH to improve risk stratification and potentially definitive hemostasis for PUBs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.