International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Alan N. Barkun; Marc Bardou; Ernst J. Kuipers; Joseph Sung; Richard H. Hunt; Myriam Martel; Paul Sinclair

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-2-201001190-00009

Clinical Guidelines |19 January 2010

International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Free

Alan N. Barkun, MD, MSc (Clinical Epidemiology); Marc Bardou, MD, PhD; Ernst J. Kuipers, MD; Joseph Sung, MD; Richard H. Hunt, MD; Myriam Martel, BSc; Paul Sinclair, MSc; International Consensus Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Conference Group

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

Abstract

Description:

A multidisciplinary group of 34 experts from 15 countries developed this update and expansion of the recommendations on the management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from 2003.

Methods:

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) process and independent ethics protocols were used. Sources of data included original and published systematic reviews; randomized, controlled trials; and abstracts up to October 2008. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations have been rated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

Recommendations:

Recommendations emphasize early risk stratification, by using validated prognostic scales, and early endoscopy (within 24 hours). Endoscopic hemostasis remains indicated for high-risk lesions, whereas data support attempts to dislodge clots with hemostatic, pharmacologic, or combination treatment of the underlying stigmata. Clips or thermocoagulation, alone or with epinephrine injection, are effective methods; epinephrine injection alone is not recommended. Second-look endoscopy may be useful in selected high-risk patients but is not routinely recommended. Preendoscopy proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy may downstage the lesion; intravenous high-dose PPI therapy after successful endoscopic hemostasis decreases both rebleeding and mortality in patients with high-risk stigmata. Although selected patients can be discharged promptly after endoscopy, high-risk patients should be hospitalized for at least 72 hours after endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with UGIB who require a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a PPI with a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor is preferred to reduce rebleeding. Patients with UGIB who require secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis should start receiving acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) again as soon as cardiovascular risks outweigh gastrointestinal risks (usually within 7 days); ASA plus PPI therapy is preferred over clopidogrel alone to reduce rebleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) represents a substantial clinical and economic burden, with reported incidence ranging from 48 to 160 cases per 100 000 adults per year (1–5), and mortality generally from 10% to 14% (5, 6). For patients with and without complications of nonvariceal UGIB in the United States, mean lengths of stay were 4.4 and 2.7 days and hospitalization costs were $5632 and $3402 (2004 US dollars), respectively (7).

Some data (2, 4, 5) suggest a decreasing annual incidence of UGIB amid an unchanging (3, 5) or decreasing (8) incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding, which is increasingly related to the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Mortality from UGIB has decreased by 23% in the United States (1998 to 2006) (4) and by 40% in the United Kingdom (1993 to 2007) (6), but has remained unchanged in Canada (1993 to 2003) (2) and the Netherlands (1993 to 2003) (5).

Recent national data suggest that previous recommendations, although still not optimally adhered to, may result in improved patient outcomes (9–13). Furthermore, new data have become available since the 2002 British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines (14) and the 2003 consensus guidelines (15) that warrant an update of the previous recommendations. A multidisciplinary group developed international guidelines to help clinicians make informed decisions regarding the management of patients who present with nonvariceal UGIB, which reflect the 2009 state of the art.

Methods

The participants developed these recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) process for the development of clinical practice guidelines (16, 17).

Scope and Purpose

These guidelines provide an international update to the 2003 consensus recommendations for the management of patients with nonvariceal UGIB. The participants determined issues to be covered by consensus, on the basis of a review of the 2003 guidelines (15) and subsequent published literature.

Stakeholder Involvement

A national survey of needs and barriers to the implementation of guidelines on UGIB identified target users (18). As a result, an organizing committee (Drs. Bardou, Kuipers, Sung, and Barkun [Chair]) selected an international, multidisciplinary group of 34 voting participants from 15 countries for their expertise in the areas of acute nonvariceal UGIB, evidence-based medicine, and continuing medical education (Appendix 1). The group included community-based and academic family physicians, emergency department physicians, intensive care physicians, pharmacologists, hospital pharmacists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, radiologists, epidemiologists, and ethicists. The committee initially also consulted nurses and hospital administrators (18).

Sources and Searches

Literature searches included MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ISI Web of Knowledge, with manual searches of bibliographies of key articles and proceedings of abstracts of major gastroenterology meetings held in the last 5 years (from the American College of Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Week, and United European Gastroenterology Week). Researchers retrieved data up to October 2008 by searching for updated topics from 2002 and new topics from 1966. Researchers prioritized data from randomized, clinical trials, when available, and performed meta-analyses (when applicable) before the meeting. They derived search terms from previous Cochrane meta-analyses on nonvariceal UGIB and through discussions with the methodologists in the group, and the terms were then approved by the entire group. An independent research assistant performed the searches and summarized them by using standardized report forms. These were in turn reviewed by both methodological and content experts and approved by the entire group. Search strings and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) diagrams for each of the statements are available on request.

Review and Grading of Evidence

Initially, 3 members of the group (Drs. Rostom, Malfertheiner, and Barkun) rated the level of evidence available and the strength of each recommendation by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process (19, 20) (Appendix Table 1). The entire group subsequently revised and approved the ratings after further review. The group considered health benefits, side effects, and risks, as well as cost data (when available). Seven new or updated meta-analyses were performed for the meeting, relating to statements A6, A8, B3, B11, C3, D6, and E4 (Appendix Tables 2 and 3), by using a similar process as that for obtaining search string results. Most of these (for statements A6 [21], A8 [22], B11 [23], C3 [24], and D6 [25]) were presented at Digestive Disease Week 2009. All are available on request.

Group Processes

All participants identified statements to be modified, gaps in the previous recommendations, and the need for any new statements. Using a modified Delphi process, an organizing committee (chaired by Dr. Barkun) generated a list of new and old statements and circulated it electronically to all participants through 2 iterations before the meeting (26, 27). Participants anonymously voted on which statements they felt warranted discussion at the meeting, and provided comments on the wording of the statements, which were progressively finalized through 2 separate iterations and ultimately at the consensus meeting. All participants reviewed evidence packages before the meeting, which included both summary analyses, individual trial descriptions, and an electronic copy of the individual studies selected. The group analyzed further summary data and discussed individual studies at participants' request.

The group held a 2-day consensus conference in October 2008, chaired by a nonvoting member (Dr. Hunt), where data were presented and the grade attributed to the evidence was modified as needed and voted on by each participant. A statement was accepted if more than 75% of participants voted a, b, or c (agree strongly, agree moderately, or just agree) on a 6-point scale (with d, e, and f, being just disagree, disagree moderately, and disagree strongly, respectively). A working group drafted the manuscript, which was then reviewed and approved by all participants.

Applicability

The participants discussed cost implications and international availability and feasibility, as well as population-based ethnic variations, where applicable (such as for proton-pump inhibitor [PPI] pharmacokinetics). Initiatives on dissemination and economics are ongoing, including an analysis of needs and barriers identified by nurses, pharmacists, and physicians in applying guidelines and a systematic review of health economic aspects of UGIB. Separate papers will describe the criteria for monitoring and audit purposes (quality indicators).

Ethics

The conference was guided by existing ethics standards of medical institutions (28–30) and supplemented by additional procedures. An unconflicted ethics consultant (Dr. Jones) and an ad hoc advisory committee (Drs. Jones, Enns, and Barkun) developed and implemented a framework to manage declared conflicts of interest before the consensus meeting. Mandatory written disclosures of financial declared conflicts of interest within the 24 months before the meeting were obtained a priori from all voting participants and included in conference materials. The ad hoc advisory committee identified one third of the statements (7 of 21) as having the potential for conflict of interest. Before discussion of the identified statements, participants were asked openly to voluntarily recuse themselves from the discussion if they had a conflict of interest. The participants voted anonymously by using touchpad technology after completing scientific discussions for each statement (Appendix 2). Substantial numbers of participants with declared conflicts of interests (≥24%) recused themselves from the discussions for 6 statements (A8, C3, C4, E1, E2, E3, and E4) (Appendix 2). However, vote tallies with and without those of participants with declared conflicts of interest revealed no differences in the final outcomes of the “agree” decisions.

Additional Domains Addressed by the Consensus Meeting

Knowledge gaps requiring further research were identified, and dissemination of the guidelines was discussed. A large, Canadian, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00840008) is assessing whether adherence to existing consensus recommendations on UGIB is improved with a multifaceted, tailored implementation strategy. In addition, subcommittees are developing manuscripts on methodology of RCTs in UGIB, quality indicators, the effect of the adopted ethical process, and endoscopic classification of ulcer bleeding stigmata.

Role of the Funding Source

The conference was underwritten by unrestricted, pooled funds contributed to the supporting societies. Funding or in-kind support was provided by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG); European Association for Gastroenterology and Endoscopy; Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy; and Institute of Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition (of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research) and from at-arms-length contributions from AstraZeneca Mölndal (Sweden), Abbott Canada, and Olympus Canada provided to the CAG. The CAG administered all aspects of the meeting. The funding sources had no role in identifying statements, abstracting data, synthesizing results, grading evidence, or preparing the manuscript or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Recommendation Statements

Each statement is followed by the grade of supporting evidence, the result of the vote, and a discussion of the evidence.

The Table summarizes the recommendations that are new from this consensus and those that are revised from the 2003 guidelines (15), as well as those that are unchanged because the majority of the group felt that they did not require revision at this time. (These are not discussed within the text [15].)

Table.

Summary of Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Table.

Section A: Resuscitation, Risk Assessment, and Preendoscopy Management

Statement A2

Prognostic scales are recommended for early stratification of patients into low- and high-risk categories for rebleeding and mortality.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 56%; b, 35%; c, 6%; d, 3%]. Grade: Low, 1c, “do it”)

As stated in the 2003 guidelines (15), patients should be stratified into low and high risk by using prognostic scales, on the basis of clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic criteria. Early identification of high-risk patients allows appropriate intervention, which minimizes morbidity and mortality.

Clinical predictors of increased risk for rebleeding or mortality include age greater than 65 years; shock; poor overall health status; comorbid illnesses; low initial hemoglobin levels; melena; transfusion requirement; fresh red blood on rectal examination, in the emesis, or in the nasogastric aspirate; sepsis; and elevated urea, creatinine, or serum aminotransferase levels (15). Other factors predictive of outcomes include chronic alcoholism, active cancer, or unsuitable sociofamily conditions (31), and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 11 or greater (32).

The Blatchford and preendoscopic Rockall scores (33) use only clinical and laboratory data (before endoscopy) to identify patients who require intervention, whereas the complete Rockall score (34) also use endoscopic variables to predict rebleeding or mortality.

The Blatchford score includes hemoglobin level, blood urea level, pulse, systolic blood pressure, the presence of syncope or melena, and evidence of hepatic disease or cardiac failure and accurately identifies patients at low risk for clinical intervention (35–37), even without inclusion of urea level or syncope (38). Selected patients can be safely managed as outpatients without early endoscopy by using the Blatchford score (36, 37). This scale also compares favorably with the preendoscopic and complete Rockall scores (37–39).

Endoscopic predictors of increased risk for rebleeding and mortality include active bleeding (especially arterial bleeding rather than oozing), nonbleeding visible vessel (NBVV) or adherent clot, ulcer size (generally >2 cm) (40–43), ulcer location (posterior lesser gastric curvature or posterior duodenal wall), and lesion type (for example, ulcer, varices, or cancer) (15). A comparison of the Baylor College, Rockall, and Cedars–Sinai Medical Center predictive indexes found that the Rockall score best identified patients at low risk (44). This score has been validated in multiple countries (44–47) but has better discriminative ability for mortality than for rebleeding (38, 44, 46, 47). Use of the Rockall score has been shown to yield a more accurate diagnosis (significantly fewer undefined causes and increased identification of peptic ulcer) and shorter duration of hospitalization (48).

Statement A4

Blood transfusions should be administered to a patient with a hemoglobin level of 70 g/L or less.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 59%; b, 35%; c, 6%]. Grade: Low, 1c, “do it”)

The threshold for transfusion for each patient should be based on his or her underlying condition, hemodynamic status, and markers of tissue hypoxia in acute situations. The American Society of Anesthesiologists concluded (49) that preoperative blood transfusion should be based on the patient's risk for complications from inadequate oxygenation rather than by a fixed hemoglobin level. Red blood cell transfusion is rarely indicated when hemoglobin level is greater than 100 g/L and is almost always indicated when the level is less than 60 g/L.

The risk for adverse outcomes associated with anemia must be weighed individually against the potential side effects of blood transfusions. A meta-analysis of observational studies, including studies in trauma, surgery, and intensive care (50), found that transfusion was associated with a higher risk for death, nosocomial infection, multiorgan dysfunction, and acute respiratory distress syndromes than no exposure in multivariate analyses, although confounding by need for transfusion could not be excluded.

International guidelines (51) recommend initiating red blood cell transfusions for most critically ill patients when hemoglobin levels decrease to less than 70 g/L, with a target level of 70 to 90 g/L, in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage. The Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care trial (52) in 838 critically ill patients suggested lower mortality with hemoglobin levels of 70 to 90 g/L than with levels of 100 to 120 g/L (52). Unfortunately, these data excluded patients with UGIB. The actual transfusion requirement and threshold hemoglobin for transfusion in patients with acute UGIB (assuming a value after equilibration) may be higher because of hemodynamic instability, inaccurate hemoglobin measures, or the presence of continued or recurrent bleeding that leads to a rapid decrease to dangerously low hemoglobin levels. In a prospective cohort study (53), hemoglobin levels less than 82 g/L in patients with UGIB predicted elevated cardiac troponin I levels.

Because patients with UGIB are often elderly or have comorbid cardiovascular conditions, they may have poor tolerance for anemia. Threshold hemoglobin levels of 60 to 100 g/L may warrant transfusion in patients with underlying cardiac disease (ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular surgery, or heart failure) (49). However, a prospective study (54) found no difference in postoperative morbidity and mortality between transfusion threshold levels less than 80 g/L and less than 90 g/L in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Statement A5

In patients receiving anticoagulants, correction of coagulopathy is recommended but should not delay endoscopy.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 38%; b, 44%; c, 15%; d, 3%]. Grade: Low, 2c, “probably do it”)

Data on correction of coagulopathy are few and conflicting, as identified by a systematic review done for the conference (55). A retrospective cohort study (56) that included 233 patients with nonvariceal UGIB found that 95% of the patients who received anticoagulants had an international normalized ratio (INR) between 1.3 and 2.7 (56). A baseline INR less than 1.3 versus 1.3 or greater did not predict rebleeding, transfusion requirement, surgery, length of stay, or mortality. Therefore, data suggest that it may not be necessary to delay endoscopic therapy in patients with mild to moderate coagulation defects. Furthermore, an exploratory analysis of 1869 patients in the RUGBE (Registry on Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Endoscopy) Canadian cohort study (9) found that neither INR nor platelet count predicted rebleeding. Although platelet count did not significantly predict mortality, a presentation INR of 1.5 or greater was a significant predictor of mortality in patients with UGIB (55), which may reflect its greater importance as a comorbid index.

Another study in patients with any UGIB (57) found that intensive measures to correct INR can reduce mortality. Baradarian and colleagues (57), who used a historical cohort comparison, suggested that correcting an INR to less than 1.8 as part of intensive resuscitation led to lower mortality and fewer myocardial infarctions in the intervention group. The groups did not differ in length of stay, units of blood transfused, or time to endoscopy. Other data suggest that endoscopic treatment with injection or heater probe may be safely performed in patients with an INR less than 2.5 (58). A cohort study in patients who underwent endoscopic treatment (58) found no differences in rebleeding, surgery, mortality, or complication rates between patients receiving warfarin (baseline INR, 1.5 to 6.0), whose INRs were corrected to 1.5 to 2.5 by using fresh frozen plasma, and a control group who did not receive anticoagulants.

Considering the paucity of data on INR correction and the recognized benefits of early endoscopy (see statement B3), the participants felt that treating coagulopathy was necessary in patients who received anticoagulants but that endoscopy should not be delayed while doing so unless the INR (or prothrombin time where INR is unavailable) is supratherapeutic, because correction in these patients may facilitate endoscopic treatment. This approach should not be generalized to patients with cirrhosis because the prothrombin time does not seem to predict bleeding risk in this setting (59). Correction of coagulopathy from other causes may be necessary on a case-by-case basis.

Statement A6

Promotility agents should not be used routinely before endoscopy to increase the diagnostic yield.

(Agree, 82% [Vote: a, 35%; b, 35%; c, 12%; d, 6%; e, 3%; f, 9%]. Grade: Moderate, 2b, “probably don't do it”)

Although the use of preendoscopy promotility agents may improve diagnostic yield in selected patients with suspected blood in the stomach, they are not warranted for routine use in all patients who present with UGIB.

A meta-analysis (21) of 3 trials that evaluated erythromycin (60–62), comprising 316 patients, and 2 abstracts that evaluated metoclopramide (63, 64) found that use of a prokinetic agent significantly reduced the need for repeated endoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.88]) in patients suspected of having blood in their stomach, compared with placebo or no treatment (Appendix Table 2). The groups did not differ in length of stay, units of blood transfused, or need for surgery. An analysis of data from the 3 erythromycin trials (65) found that preendoscopic erythromycin resulted in a cost-effective outcome in most of the trials.

Because adequate visualization allows proper treatment in most patients and on the basis of the characteristics of patients selected for inclusion in the aforementioned trials, participants felt that promotility agents were not warranted for routine use but may be useful in patients who are suspected to have substantial amounts of blood or clot in their upper gastrointestinal tract or those who have recently eaten.

Statement A7

Selected patients with acute ulcer bleeding who are at low risk for rebleeding on the basis of clinical and endoscopic criteria may be discharged promptly after endoscopy.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 53%; b, 35%; c, 9%; d, 3%]. Grade: High, 1a, “do it”)

Although some highly selected patients may be discharged before undergoing endoscopy (see statement A2), most patients will require risk stratification by endoscopic as well as clinical criteria. Those classified as being at low risk for rebleeding can be discharged promptly after endoscopy (15).

An RCT in 95 low-risk patients (66) prospectively assessed the role of early discharge and found no differences in rates of recurrent bleeding but that early discharge significantly reduced costs compared with admission (median costs, $340 and $3940, respectively; P = 0.001). Criteria for early discharge included a clean ulcer base or flat pigmented spot, hemodynamic stability, no serious concurrent medical illness, easy accessibility to hospital, and adequate sociofamily support at home. No patient who was discharged early had any serious adverse event, underwent surgery, or died during the 30-day follow-up.

Substantial observational data (67–71) also support early discharge of low-risk patients after endoscopy. Patients stratified as low risk who were discharged early did not differ in complications (for example, rebleeding, surgery, mortality), health status, or satisfaction from those who were admitted (72–74). Unfortunately, recommendations for early discharge based on endoscopic findings are often not followed (75).

Patients are not suitable for early discharge if they have serious comorbid conditions (heart failure, recent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event, chronic alcoholism, or active cancer), are hemodynamically unstable, have an endoscopic finding of high-risk stigmata (active bleeding, NBVV, or adherent clot), or have unsuitable sociofamily conditions (31, 76). Patient location (distance to nearest emergency care center), local legal regulations, and social support should also be considered (76).

Statement A8

Preendoscopic PPI therapy may be considered to downstage the endoscopic lesion and decrease the need for endoscopic intervention but should not delay endoscopy.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 32%; b, 38%; c, 24%; d, 3%; e, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it”)

Although preendoscopic PPI therapy has not been shown to affect rebleeding, surgery, or mortality, the beneficial effects on the need for intervention, supportive cost-effectiveness analyses, and excellent safety profile suggest that these agents may be useful, particularly in those suspected of having high-risk stigmata.

A Cochrane meta-analysis through February 2006 that included 5 RCTs (77) was updated with an additional trial (78) and the full publication (79) of an abstract (22) (Appendix Table 2). The updated meta-analysis in 2223 patients included 1 study that assessed oral PPI strategies and 5 studies that assessed intravenous strategies, only 1 of which used a high-dose regimen (79). The investigators found no statistically significant differences in rates of mortality, rebleeding, or surgery between the PPI therapy and control groups. However, preendoscopic PPI treatment significantly reduced the proportion of patients with high-risk stigmata (OR, 0.67 [CI, 0.54 to 0.84]) and the need for endoscopic therapy (OR, 0.68 [CI, 0.50 to 0.93]) compared with patients in the control group who received placebo or a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (22).

A North American analysis found that preendoscopic PPI therapy was more effective and more costly in the United States, whereas in Canada it became more effective and less costly as the duration of hospitalization for high-risk patients increased or that of low-risk patients decreased (80). Identifying patients with a greater likelihood of having a high-risk lesion, such as those who present with red blood in the emesis or nasogastric aspirate, may optimize the cost-effectiveness of this approach (81). Other cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested either the economic dominance of preendoscopic high-dose intravenous PPI therapy (82) or the cost-effectiveness of oral PPI in this setting (83), but certain model assumptions limit these conclusions.

The observed lesion downstaging attributable to PPI therapy before endoscopy may be even more beneficial in situations in which early endoscopy may be delayed or when available endoscopic expertise may be suboptimal.

Section B: Endoscopic Management

Statement B3

Early endoscopy (within 24 hours of presentation) is recommended for most patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 85%; b, 12%; c, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it”)

The definition of early endoscopy ranges from 2 to 24 hours after initial presentation (71, 75, 84, 85). Among the 1869 patients of the RUGBE cohort, 76% received their first endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation (mean, 23 hours [SD, 38]) (9). In contrast, in a United Kingdom survey of 6750 patients (13), only 50% received endoscopy within 24 hours. Early endoscopy (within the first 24 hours), with risk classification by clinical and endoscopic criteria, allows for safe and prompt discharge of patients classified as low risk, improves patient outcomes for patients classified as high risk, and reduces use of resources for patients classified as either low or high risk (15).

Although early endoscopy is encouraged for most patients, endoscopy may need to be delayed or deferred in selected high-risk patients, such as those with active acute coronary syndrome or suspected perforation. Also, a very low Blatchford score can identify very low-risk patients who are unlikely to have high-risk stigmata or benefit from endoscopic therapy (38) or who can be safely managed as outpatients (36, 37) without the need for early endoscopy; however, this remains controversial (see statement A2).

Data suggest that early endoscopy is safe and effective for all risk groups. A systematic review (71) found no major complications in patients triaged to outpatient care after early endoscopy. Early endoscopy is associated with significant reductions in length of hospital stay in patients at low risk (66, 72, 85), high risk (84), and combined patient groups (71, 86, 87), compared with delayed endoscopy. Recent administrative data found that the performance of early endoscopy was associated with a decreased need for surgery in elderly patients (88) and that patients with nonvariceal UGIB who were admitted on weekends had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality and were less likely to undergo early endoscopy within 1 day of hospitalization (87). A large United Kingdom cohort analysis (13) has also shown a strong trend in risk-adjusted mortality ratio that just failed to show a statistically significant link between decreased mortality and the practice of after-hours endoscopy.

Further analysis found no additional benefit from very early or urgent (<12 hours) endoscopy over early (>12 hours) endoscopy. A meta-analysis of 3 trials (75, 84, 85), comprising 528 patients, found no significant reduction in rebleeding (OR, 0.71 [CI, 0.28 to 1.81]), surgery (OR, 1.16 [CI, 0.39 to 3.51]), or mortality (OR, 0.70 [CI, 0.14 to 3.57]) with urgent (1 to 12 hours) endoscopy compared with later (>12 hours) endoscopy (Appendix Table 2). One study (85) reported significantly shorter hospital stays and lower costs with very early (1 to 2 hours) versus elective (1 to 2 days) endoscopy. In a subgroup of patients with a bloody gastric aspirate, blood transfusions and hospital stay were significantly reduced with urgent (<12 hours vs. >12 hours) endoscopy (84). Retrospective analyses that assessed urgent (0 to 8 hours) versus early (6 or 8 to 24 hours) endoscopy (89–91) reported no between-group differences in clinical outcomes; however, these studies did not control for other endoscopist-related factors, type of therapeutic interventions, or co-interventions. A study identified 4 independent predictors (P < 0.050) of active bleeding and the need for very early endoscopy (<12 hours): fresh blood in the nasogastric tube, hemodynamic instability, a hemoglobin level less than 80 g/L, and a leukocyte count greater than 12 × 10⁹ cells/L (92). Of note, indirect findings from recent administrative data (87) suggest that early endoscopy may be associated with lower mortality.

On the basis of available data, the participants recommended a target time to endoscopy of within 24 hours of presentation.

Statement B5

A finding of a clot in an ulcer bed warrants targeted irrigation in an attempt at dislodgement, with appropriate treatment of the underlying lesion.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 59%; b, 29%; c, 9%; d, 0%; f, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 2b, “probably do it”)

Statement B6

The role of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with adherent clots is controversial. Endoscopic therapy may be considered, although intensive PPI therapy alone may be sufficient.

(Agree, 86% [Vote: a, 24%; b, 50%; c, 12%; d, 9%; e, 3%; f, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 2b, “probably do it”)

Vigorous irrigation (for example, water pump) of a clot in an ulcer bed has successfully exposed the underlying stigmata in 26% to 43% of cases (93, 94), and the revealed stigmata were high risk in 70% of those cases (94). The endoscopic findings present after clot removal should be appropriately managed.

The risk for rebleeding with clots that remain adherent after washing without endoscopic therapy (with or without PPI therapy) has been reported to be as low as 0% to 8% (94, 95) but also as high as 25% to 35% (93, 96–98) in clinically high-risk patients. The disparity of these data has led to controversy as to the optimal management of adherent clots (99).

For the most part, endoscopic therapy for adherent clots refers to preinjecting them with epinephrine before shaving them down with a cold guillotining snare technique—without disrupting the pedicle of the clot—and then applying combination treatment to the residual stigmata of hemorrhage (97, 98).

One meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (99), comprising 189 patients with adherent clots, found no significant benefits for endoscopic versus no endoscopic therapy (relative risk [RR], 0.31 [CI, 0.06 to 1.77]). Similarly, another meta-analysis that included 6 RCTs (100), comprising 240 patients, also found that endoscopic therapy did not significantly reduce rebleeding (RR, 0.48 [CI, 0.18 to 1.30]) compared with medical therapy. A patient-level analysis of data from 4 fully published trials (100) did find a significant benefit for rebleeding (RR, 0.30 [CI, 0.10 to 0.77]). These discrepant results fuel the controversy and may be attributed to both varying patient populations and statistical heterogeneity not fully accounted for in the meta-analytic methods (101). No data suggest excess risk; a systematic review (102) found a low incidence of complications resulting from endoscopic therapy.

The 1 RCT that compared endoscopic therapy plus high-dose intravenous PPI therapy with high-dose intravenous PPI therapy alone found no rebleeding among 24 Asian patients with clots resistant to vigorous irrigation (95). Therefore, among patients with adherent clots resistant to vigorous irrigation, endoscopic therapy may be beneficial in patients at high risk for rebleeding (such as those with serious concurrent illness), whereas intensive PPI therapy without endoscopic treatment may be sufficient in patients at low risk (particularly those who are Asian or Helicobacter pylori–positive) (99).

Statement B8

Epinephrine injection alone provides suboptimal efficacy and should be used in combination with another method.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 71%; b, 24%; c, 6%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “don't do it”)

Statement B10

Clips, thermocoagulation, or sclerosant injection should be used in patients with high-risk lesions, alone or in combination with epinephrine injection.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 50%; b, 35%; c, 12%; d, 3%]. Grade: High, 1a, “do it”)

Several recent meta-analyses have better quantified the efficacy of endoscopic therapies (99, 102–107). Although monotherapy with epinephrine injection is more effective than medical therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata, it is inferior to other monotherapies or to combination therapy that uses 2 or more methods (99, 102–107). Numerous meta-analyses indicate that adding a second procedure, such as a second injectate (for example, alcohol, thrombin, or fibrin glue), thermal contact, or clips, is superior to epinephrine injection alone (99, 102, 103, 105, 107). Epinephrine plus a second method for treating high-risk stigmata significantly reduced rebleeding (OR, 0.51 [CI, 0.39 to 0.66]), surgery (OR, 0.63 [CI, 0.45 to 0.89]), and mortality compared with epinephrine monotherapy (OR, 0.50 [CI, 0.30 to 0.82]) (105).

Monotherapy with thermal devices, sclerosants, clips, thrombin, or fibrin glue provides more effective endoscopic hemostasis than epinephrine alone (99) or pharmacotherapy alone (106). Clips were superior to injection monotherapy in 4 (99, 102, 103, 106) of 5 meta-analyses (99, 102–104, 106). Clips with injection were superior to injection alone but not to clips alone (103, 106). Combination therapy (injection plus second injectate, thermal, or clips) was superior to injection therapy alone, but not to clips or thermal therapy alone (102, 106). The participants felt that the data were insufficient to show superiority or equivalence of the recommended treatments but that the data were strongest for the use of thermal devices, clips, or combination treatments.

Complications with dual versus single endoscopic therapy included induction of bleeding (1.7% in each group) and perforation (0.6% vs. 0%; P = 0.003) (102); however, perforation has also been reported with monotherapy in some RCTs (108, 109).

Statement B11

Routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended.

(Agree, 91% [Vote: a, 50%; b, 21%; c, 21%; d, 3%; e, 3%; f, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 2b, “probably don't do it”)

A routine second-look endoscopy is generally defined as a preplanned systematic second endoscopy performed 16 to 24 hours after the initial endoscopy, with appropriate therapy in patients with evidence of active bleeding or NBVV.

Although data support some benefits associated with second-look endoscopy, they are generally older data and do not include the use of PPI therapy or optimal hemostatic strategies. The findings are therefore not generalizable to current clinical practice. In addition, cost-effectiveness data do not seem to support the routine use of second-look endoscopy.

Five published studies (110–114) and 4 abstracts of randomized trials (115–118) have assessed a second-look approach, with only 1 in each group demonstrating statistically significant benefits. The conclusions of 2 previous meta-analyses of these trials (119, 120), which suggest benefits in rebleeding, are hampered by methodological limitations. In 1 case (119), the investigators noted analytical shortcomings in data abstraction from 2 trials (111, 113), whereas selection bias may have resulted in the other case (120) from the inclusion of a decade-old abstract of a positive study (117), not yet fully published, but not of another abstract from the same era (118) that failed to show efficacy.

A more recent meta-analysis of 6 trials (121) found that routine second-look endoscopy, with heater probe therapy when appropriate, significantly reduced the risk for rebleeding (RR, 0.29 [CI, 0.11 to 0.73]) compared with single endoscopy; however, performing second-look endoscopy with injection monotherapy conferred no advantage. A meta-analysis performed for the meeting (23) included 6 trials comprising 750 patients. It excluded 2 older abstracts (117, 118), which have not been fully published, and Rutgeerts and colleagues' study (114), which included second-look endoscopy in both study groups. In the meta-analysis, routine second-look endoscopy significantly decreased rebleeding (OR, 0.59 [CI, 0.38 to 0.91]) and surgery (OR, 0.43 [CI, 0.19 to 0.96]) but not mortality (OR, 0.65 [CI, 0.26 to 1.62]) (Appendix Table 2). These findings must be interpreted in light of differences across trials with regard to patient selection, adopted methodologies, and both intervention and control treatments, as well as sensitivity analyses that show poor robustness of the results. The most favorable results were from studies with the greatest proportions of high-risk patients (110, 113). Indeed, Chiu and colleagues (110) included 47% of patients who presented with shock and more than 40% with active bleeding. Similarly, Saeed and colleagues (113) assessed patients with a very high risk for rebleeding (on the basis of Forrest high-risk stigmata, as well as additional clinical and endoscopic criteria), of whom 70% had active bleeding. Although the investigators reported the noted decrease in rebleeding (OR, 0.08 [CI, 0.00 to 1.50]) as statistically significant in the final results of the latter trial, it did not remain so when conventional 2-sided inferential testing, adapted to the small sample size, was applied.

Of note, the most recently published trial—and the only one with a control group that received high-dose intravenous PPI therapy (115)—found no benefit with second-look endoscopy. High-dose intravenous PPI therapy is the current standard in many health care systems, which suggests that second-look endoscopy may not provide additional benefits when PPI therapy is available.

A U.S. cost-effectiveness analysis (122) found that a strategy of selective (not routine) second-look endoscopy at 24 hours only in patients at high risk for rebleeding was more effective and less expensive than repeated endoscopy in patients with rebleeding (with or without intravenous PPIs) or routine repeated endoscopy in all patients, although extrapolations were made from trials that did not actually use high-dose intravenous PPI therapy. Intravenous PPI therapy became the dominant strategy if the rebleeding rate was 9% (closer to real-life outcomes) or if the cost of PPI dropped below $10 per day. When considering baseline assumptions in the model and how they relate to current practice, PPI therapy seemed to be the most cost-effective alternative.

In the only study that fully reported risks (110), no complications directly attributable to the second-look endoscopy were reported.

In conclusion, although older data supported a second-look approach, these trials did not use contemporary management strategies associated with decreased rebleeding, such as initial endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclips or combination therapy (123), or post–endoscopic hemostasis high-dose PPI therapy (24). Furthermore, the few existing contemporary data do not favor the use of routine second-look endoscopy at this time. A subgroup of patients with particularly high-risk presentations may benefit, but this requires further study. In light of these considerations, the participants did not recommend the routine use of second-look endoscopy.

Section C: Pharmacologic Management

Statement C3

An intravenous bolus followed by continuous-infusion PPI therapy should be used to decrease rebleeding and mortality in patients with high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 65%; b, 24%; c, 6%; d, 3%; e, 0%; f, 3%]. Grade: High, 1a, “do it”)

A 2006 Cochrane meta-analysis of data as of November 2004 (124) included 24 RCTs and was updated (24) with 7 additional trials (125–131) (Appendix Table 2). The updated meta-analysis included 5792 patients. Overall, PPI therapy with or without endoscopic therapy reduced rebleeding (OR, 0.45 [CI, 0.36 to 0.57]) and surgery (OR, 0.56 [CI, 0.45 to 0.70]) but not mortality (OR, 0.90 [CI, 0.67 to 1.19]) compared with placebo or histamine-2 receptor agonist. Proton-pump inhibitor therapy reduced mortality among patients with active bleeding or NBVV and in trials conducted in Asia. Further analysis showed that in patients with active bleeding or NBVV who received endoscopic hemostatic therapy, high-dose intravenous PPI therapy (80 mg bolus plus 8 mg/h continuous infusion) reduced rebleeding (OR, 0.43 [CI, 0.27 to 0.67]), surgery (OR, 0.60 [CI, 0.37 to 0.96]), and mortality (OR, 0.57 [CI, 0.34 to 0.96]). Lower doses of PPI (either intravenous or oral) reduced rebleeding but no evidence was found of an effect on mortality.

Similarly, the meta-analysis by Laine and McQuaid (99) found significant benefit in rebleeding (RR, 0.40 [CI, 0.28 to 0.59]), surgery (RR, 0.43 [CI, 0.24 to 0.58]), and mortality (RR, 0.41 [CI, 0.20 to 0.84]) with high-dose intravenous PPI therapy after endoscopic therapy, whereas lower doses were associated with significant benefits in rebleeding (RR, 0.53 [CI, 0.35 to 0.78]) but not surgery or mortality compared with placebo or no treatment.

Strong evidence demonstrates the efficacy of high-dose intravenous PPI therapy after successful endoscopy, but it is not possible to make conclusions regarding the efficacy of either lower intravenous doses or high-dose oral therapy. Indeed, head-to-head comparisons and subgroup analyses of high versus lower intravenous doses are underpowered, and no direct comparisons of high-dose intravenous therapy and high-dose oral therapy have been made. However, lower intravenous doses or high-dose oral PPI therapy (at doses equivalent to at least 4 times the standard daily oral dose) are also effective (especially in Asian populations) and can be considered when high-dose intravenous therapy is not available or feasible.

In patients with UGIB who have undergone successful endoscopic hemostasis, administering high-dose intravenous PPI therapy for 3 days is both more effective and less costly than not doing so, as demonstrated by cost analyses (132–134)—or can become so, as demonstrated by sensitivity analyses (83, 122). The intervention group usually receives high-dose intravenous PPI therapy, and the comparator group usually receives placebo; few trials have included low-dose intravenous or oral PPI as comparators. High-dose intravenous PPI therapy is a dominant strategy mainly because the cost of the medications is relatively lower than the incremental expenses of 1 additional rebleeding episode. Comparisons of intravenous and oral PPI use remain theoretical, because only a few underpowered RCTs (135–137) have assessed this comparison.

Although recent data have linked PPI use to in-hospital Clostridium difficile infection (138, 139), the participants felt that the benefits outweighed the risks in patients who have acute UGIB that requires PPI therapy.

Statement C4

Patients should be discharged with a prescription for a single daily-dose oral PPI for a duration as dictated by the underlying etiology.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 56%; b, 32%; c, 6%; d, 3%; e, 3%]. Grade: Low, 1c, “do it”)

Because rebleeding episodes may occur more than 3 days after endoscopy (125, 140, 141), most RCTs that assess the role of postendoscopic PPI therapy have also included a prescription for once-daily PPI therapy that starts 72 hours after endoscopic hemostasis (125, 129, 140–142). In the nonacute setting, once-daily PPI therapy has demonstrated effective ulcer healing for patients with peptic ulcer disease (143), and inadequate evidence supports the need for twice-daily therapy in the maintenance setting. In the absence of direct comparative trial data of single versus daily PPI administration, this recommendation is supported by observational results in studies that used a standard once-daily dosage (125, 129, 140–142). However, the duration and dose of the PPI will be determined by the underlying etiology; for example, healing rates for complicated or severe esophagitis are relatively low in some studies, and twice-daily doses may be warranted in the context of UGIB (144). In addition, patients who require ASA or NSAID therapy may require long-term secondary prophylaxis, as discussed in statements E1 to E4.

In community-based population studies, the use of PPIs has been associated with potential side effects, including C. difficile infection (145), pneumonia (146), and osteoporosis-related fractures (147). These findings remain controversial, and the benefits of PPI administration for acute ulcer healing outweigh these potential risks in the acute treatment setting; however, caution may be warranted during long-term use.

Section D: Nonendoscopic and Nonpharmacologic In-Hospital Management

Statement D2

Most patients who have undergone endoscopic hemostasis for high-risk stigmata should be hospitalized for at least 72 hours thereafter.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 68%; b, 24%; c, 9%]. Grade: Low, 1c, “do it”)

Studies of the natural history of ulcer lesions show that it takes 72 hours for most high-risk lesions to become low-risk lesions after endoscopic therapy (96, 148). In many contemporary trials (125, 140, 141), 60% to 76% of patients who had rebleeding within 30 days after endoscopic hemostasis plus high-dose PPI therapy did so within the first 72 hours. Thus, patients identified as being at high risk for rebleeding, such as those with high-risk endoscopic stigmata, should be admitted to a hospital for at least 72 hours.

However, 1 RCT showed that selected patients at higher risk might be safely managed as outpatients after endoscopic therapy without an increased risk for complications (149). The study in 82 patients with NBVV, ulcer size less than 1.5 cm, no hypovolemia, no associated severe disease, and appropriate family support found no differences in rebleeding, morbidity, or mortality at the 30-day follow-up among patients randomly assigned to outpatient or hospital care (149). Mean cost of care per patient was significantly lower for the outpatient group than for the hospital group ($970 vs. $1595; P < 0.001). However, the study was underpowered to be able to confidently recommend early discharge of patients at higher risk at this time. The consensus participants felt that further research was needed, especially in light of recent data that suggest some patients may be discharged too early (150).

Patients should be admitted to a monitored setting for at least the first 24 hours on the basis of risk (hemodynamic instability, increasing age, severe comorbidity, active bleeding at endoscopy, or large ulcer size [for example, >2 cm]) (5, 32, 40, 151, 152) or clinical condition.

One study (153) showed that use of a checklist with specific recommendations on diet, PPI therapy, H. pylori eradication therapy, NSAID use, discharge, and follow-up can significantly reduce the length of hospital stay for patients with UGIB.

Statement D4

Where available, percutaneous embolization can be considered as an alternative to surgery for patients for whom endoscopic therapy has failed.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 62%; b, 32%; c, 6%]. Grade: Low, 2c, “probably do it”)

Percutaneous or transcatheter arterial embolization has been investigated as an alternative to surgery in patients for whom endoscopic therapy has failed, especially those who are high-risk candidates for surgery. Gelatin sponges, polyvinyl alcohol, cyanoacrylic glues, and coils have been used to embolize the vessels feeding bleeding lesions (154).

In uncontrolled trials, primary rates of technical success range from 52% to 98%, with recurrent bleeding occurring in about 10% to 20% of patients (155–159). A retrospective, single-center study (160) showed no significant differences between embolization therapy and surgery for rates of rebleeding, surgery, or mortality, despite patients in the embolization group being older and having a higher prevalence of heart disease.

Although uncommon with modern, highly selective techniques, complications include bowel ischemia; secondary duodenal stenosis; and gastric, hepatic, and splenic infarction (154, 155, 159, 161). The high periprocedural mortality of 25% to 30% is largely attributed to patients being selected for this procedure because they are at high surgical risk because of advanced age and underlying conditions (156, 158–160).

For patients who had rebleeding after initial successful, endoscopic hemostasis, a second attempt at endoscopic therapy remains the preferred strategy (15, 162). When persistent or recurrent bleeding cannot be controlled by endoscopic therapy, percutaneous embolization can be considered as an alternative to surgery, if such expertise is available.

Statement D5

Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers should be tested for H. pylori and receive eradication therapy if it is present, with confirmation of eradication.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 82%; b, 12%; c, 0%; d, 3%; e, 3%]. Grade: High, 1a, “do it”)

Statement D6

Negative H. pylori diagnostic tests obtained in the acute setting should be repeated.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 68%; b, 21%; c, 6%; d, 3%; e, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it”)

As recommended in the previous consensus (15), patients with UGIB should be tested for H. pylori and receive eradication therapy if infection is present. A meta-analysis (163) demonstrated that eradication of H. pylori was significantly more effective than PPI therapy alone in preventing rebleeding from peptic ulcer disease. The rebleeding rate was even lower among the subgroup of patients with successful eradication, which emphasizes the importance of confirming eradication.

Tests for H. pylori may show increased false-negative rates in the context of acute bleeding, although the data vary. Although the biological mechanisms involved are poorly understood—and may indeed vary depending on the test—one suggestion is the pH buffering effect of the blood, because more alkaline settings are known to be associated with more false-negative results (164). A systematic review of 23 studies (165–187), done for the consensus meeting, found that diagnostic tests for H. pylori infection (including serology, histology, urea breath test, rapid urease test, stool antigen, and culture) demonstrate high positive predictive value (0.85 to 0.99) but low negative predictive value (0.45 to 0.75) in the setting of acute UGIB, with 25% to 55% of H. pylori–infected patients yielding false-negative results (Appendix Table 3) (25). This suggests caution in the interpretation of initially negative results and the need for repeated testing at follow-up.

Section E: Postdischarge, ASA, and NSAIDs

The following statements are similar to those included in the NSAID guidelines developed by a Canadian consensus group, which included 8 of the participants present at this consensus (188). Statements E1 and E2 were included in the NSAID guidelines and are here in condensed format. We also refer the reader to consensus publications from U.S. and international groups on the reduction of gastrointestinal risks associated with NSAID and antiplatelet therapy (189, 190).

Statement E1

In patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require an NSAID, it should be recognized that treatment with a traditional NSAID plus PPI or a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor alone is still associated with a clinically important risk for recurrent ulcer bleeding.

(Agree, 97% [Vote: a, 73%; b, 21%; c, 3%; d, 3%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b)

Statement E2

In patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require an NSAID, the combination of a PPI and a COX-2 inhibitor is recommended to reduce the risk for recurrent bleeding from that of COX-2 inhibitors alone.

(Agree, 94% [Vote: a, 52%; b, 33%; c, 9%; d, 0%; e, 6%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it”)

Two small RCTs conducted in Asia (191–193) found no significant difference in the rate of recurrent bleeding or ulcer complications (about 4% to 6%) at 6 months with COX-2 inhibitor therapy alone versus therapy with a traditional NSAID plus PPI. The relatively small numbers of patients in these studies do not exclude a benefit of one strategy over the other. These studies did not assess traditional NSAID therapy alone or complete withdrawal of NSAID therapy, and although a strategy of COX-2 inhibitor therapy alone or therapy with a traditional NSAID plus PPI may have lowered the rates of recurrent bleeding compared with historical rates from therapy with traditional NSAIDs alone, the risk was not eliminated (191–193).

Population-based studies (194, 195) also support adding a PPI to traditional NSAID therapy or administering a COX-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for upper gastrointestinal complications; however, the combination of a COX-2 inhibitor with a PPI was associated with the greatest risk reduction.

One RCT (196) demonstrated a significantly lower rate of recurrent UGIB with a COX-2 inhibitor plus a PPI (0%) compared with a COX-2 inhibitor alone (8.9%) over 1 year (difference, 8.9 percentage points [CI, 4.1 to 13.7 percentage points). A subgroup analysis (197) of pooled data from 3 RCTs with similar study designs, comprising 34 701 patients, suggested a lower incidence of clinical gastrointestinal events with a COX-2 inhibitor plus a PPI compared with a COX-2 inhibitor alone; however, no statistical analysis was performed. Several studies (198, 199) have also shown lower risks for endoscopic ulcers in patients who receive a COX-2 inhibitor plus a PPI compared with those who receive a COX-2 inhibitor alone.

Two meta-analyses (200, 201) have demonstrated an excess risk for serious cardiovascular events associated with COX-2 inhibitors compared with placebo. Optimal management of patients who require long-term NSAID therapy should consider both gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks (188). No evidence has been found of a further increased risk for renal, cardiovascular, or dermatologic adverse events with COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI therapy compared with COX-2 inhibitor therapy alone (196).

Several cost-effectiveness analyses (202–204) in patients at high risk for gastrointestinal events found that a COX-2 inhibitor was more cost-effective than a traditional NSAID plus PPI, and a traditional NSAID plus PPI was more cost-effective than a traditional NSAID alone; however, these analyses did not include a strategy of therapy with a COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI.

In summary, patients with previous ulcer bleeding require more careful follow-up and alternative strategies, including discontinuation of NSAID therapy when possible or therapy with a COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI. Statement C4 discusses the potential side effects associated with long-term PPI use.

Statement E3

In patients who receive low-dose ASA and develop acute ulcer bleeding, ASA therapy should be restarted as soon as the risk for cardiovascular complication is thought to outweigh the risk for bleeding.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 70%; b, 30%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it”)

Patients receiving low-dose ASA who develop UGIB are often advised to discontinue ASA therapy until the ulcers have healed. However, prolonged discontinuation of ASA therapy increases thrombotic risk in patients who require cardioprotective ASA therapy (205, 206). In a meta-analysis (206), ASA nonadherence or withdrawal was associated with a 3-fold higher risk for major adverse cardiac events. The delay to a thrombotic event is generally reported as between 7 and 30 days, and usually between 7 and 10 days (205, 207, 208). This temporal pattern has biological plausibility because the inhibited platelets circulate in the blood for about 10 days (205). The American Heart Association recommends (189) that the decision to discontinue ASA therapy in the setting of acute ulcer bleeding be made on an individual basis, on the basis of cardiac and gastrointestinal risks.

Data from RCTs (209, 210) suggest that the cardiovascular benefits of early reintroduction of ASA or clopidogrel may outweigh the gastrointestinal risks. An RCT in 156 patients with ASA-induced ulcer bleeding who underwent endoscopic therapy (209) found that immediate reintroduction of ASA in the presence of intravenous and oral PPI therapy was associated with a 2-fold (but statistically insignificant) increase in the risk for recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers, but discontinuation of ASA therapy was associated with a significantly increased 8-week mortality rate. Another RCT (210) found no cases of rebleeding in patients with ASA-associated endoscopic ulcers who were treated with a PPI and randomly assigned to restart antiplatelet therapy with ASA or clopidogrel within 1 day of endoscopy. Therefore, the participants agreed that no ASA-free period should be mandated; instead, patients who require ASA for cardiovascular protection should restart ASA therapy as soon as the risks for cardiovascular complication are thought to outweigh the risks for bleeding.

Statement E4

In patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require cardiovascular prophylaxis, it should be recognized that clopidogrel alone has a higher risk for rebleeding than ASA combined with a PPI.

(Agree, 100% [Vote: a, 70%; b, 24%; c, 6%]. Grade: Moderate, 1b, “do it” [adding PPI to ASA])

Clopidogrel is often perceived as relatively safe in terms of gastrointestinal adverse events, but data show that even as monotherapy, clopidogrel is associated with a high risk for rebleeding (9% to 14%) (211, 212).

Pooled results of 2 RCTs (211, 212) showed a significant reduction in rebleeding with ASA plus a PPI compared with clopidogrel therapy alone (OR, 0.06 [CI, 0.01 to 0.32]) but no significant effect on mortality (OR, 0.63 [CI, 0.24 to 1.64]) (Appendix Table 2). The 2 groups did not differ in the development or relapse of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events.

Physicians should be aware that PPIs may decrease the platelet inhibitory effect of clopidogrel (213–215). The PPI and clopidogrel may compete for the cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP2C19, which is required to convert the prodrug clopidogrel to its active metabolite (216–218). Some observational studies in clopidogrel recipients (218–220) show a small but significant association between PPI use and cardiovascular events, whereas others (215, 221, 222) do not. No randomized trials addressing this issue are available.

The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Gastroenterology currently recommend that patients receiving these medications not change their treatment regimen unless advised by their health care provider (223). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration found sufficient evidence of an interaction to require the inclusion of a statement on the clopidogrel product label that concomitant administration of drugs that inhibit CYP2C19 (such as omeprazole) should be discouraged (224). On the basis of pharmacologic profiles, some experts suggest a staggered schedule of intake for clopidogrel and the PPI (216, 225), but further research in this area is needed.

With regard to the potential side effects associated with long-term PPI use, we refer the reader to statement C4.

Future Directions

Although considerable advances have been made in both endoscopic and pharmacologic therapies for UGIB, more data are needed in many areas (Appendix Table 4).

We plan to facilitate the application of these guidelines by disseminating them to all participating societies and regions through such venues as symposia sessions or workshops at society meetings. Other scheduled application initiatives include preparation of an algorithm, a standardized slide presentation, and additional relevant peer-reviewed publications (including ethics; dissemination of guidelines; methodology of randomized, controlled trials in UGIB; quality indicators; endoscopic classification of ulcer bleeding stigmata; and health economics of UGIB); posting of major recommendations on society and government health Web sites; and translation of the guidelines in society or regional journals. Finally, we anticipate that these guidelines will be updated periodically as new data become available, as was the case for this update of the 2003 guidelines.

References

Lewis
JD
Bilker
WB
Brensinger
C
Farrar
JT
Strom
BL
Hospitalization and mortality rates from peptic ulcer disease and GI bleeding in the 1990s: relationship to sales of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acid suppression medications.
Am J Gastroenterol
2002
97
2540
9
PubMed
CrossRef
Targownik
LE
Nabalamba
A
Trends in management and outcomes of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: 1993-2003.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2006
4
1459
1466
PubMed
Lassen
A
Hallas
J
Schaffalitzky de Muckadell
OB
Complicated and uncomplicated peptic ulcers in a Danish county 1993-2002: a population-based cohort study.
Am J Gastroenterol
2006
101
945
53
PubMed
Zhao Y, Encinosa W. Hospitalizations for gastrointestinal bleeding in 1998 and 2006. HCUP Statistical Brief 65. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. Accessed atwww.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb65.pdfon 23 November 2009.
van Leerdam
ME
Vreeburg
EM
Rauws
EA
Geraedts
AA
Tijssen
JG
Reitsma
JB
et al.
Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? Time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993/1994 and 2000.
Am J Gastroenterol
2003
98
1494
9
PubMed
Dalton D, Grant-Casey J, Hearnshaw S, Lowe D, Travis S, Rockall T, et al. The UK comparative audit of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the use of blood. Oxford, UK: National Blood Service; 2007. Accessed athttp://hospital.blood.co.uk/library/pdf/UGI_Bleed_Audit_Report_Transfusion_Extract.pdfon 23 November 2009.
Adam
V
Barkun
A
Estimates of costs of hospital stay for variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the United States.
Value Health
2008
11
1
3
Lanas
A
García-Rodríguez
LA
Polo-Tomás
M
Ponce
M
Alonso-Abreu
I
Perez-Aisa
MA
et al.
Time trends and impact of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation in clinical practice.
Am J Gastroenterol
2009
104
1633
41
PubMed
Barkun
A
Sabbah
S
Enns
R
Armstrong
D
Gregor
J
Fedorak
RN
et al.
RUGBE Investigators
The Canadian Registry on Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Endoscopy (RUGBE): Endoscopic hemostasis and proton pump inhibition are associated with improved outcomes in a real-life setting.
Am J Gastroenterol
2004
99
1238
46
PubMed
Bensoussan
K
Fallone
CA
Barkun
AN
Martel
M
RUGBE Investigators
A sampling of Canadian practice in managing nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding before recent guideline publication: is there room for improvement?
Can J Gastroenterol
2005
19
487
95
PubMed
Barkun
A
Gasco
A
Jewell
D
Nevin
K
the REASON Study Investigators
Management of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (NVUGIB) after guideline publication: the REASON study [Abstract 87].
Can J Gastroenterol
2006
20
Suppl A
80A
.
Barkun
A
Enns
R
Romagnuolo
J
Muller
T
Kalmin
T
Hawes
I
et al.
Drug Utilization Review of Acid Suppressants (DURABLE)—an audit to assess the utilization of proton pump inhibitors and histamine H₂-receptor antagonists in Canadian hospitals [Abstract S1054].
Gastroenterology
2008
134
A167
.
Hearnshaw S, Logan R, Murphy M, Travis S, Palmer K. Results of the UK audit of 6750 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 2009. [Forthcoming].
British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee
Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: guidelines.
Gut
2002
51
Suppl 4
iv1
6
PubMed
Barkun
A
Bardou
M
Marshall
JK
Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding Consensus Conference Group
Consensus recommendations for managing patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Ann Intern Med
2003
139
843
57
PubMed
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. AGREE Collaboration; 2001. Accessed atwww.agreecollaboration.org/pdfqj/agreeinstrumentfinal.pdfon 23 November 2009.
Palda
VA
Davis
D
Goldman
J
A guide to the Canadian Medical Association handbook on clinical practice guidelines.
CMAJ
2007
177
1221
6
PubMed
Hayes S, Hawes I, Dawes M, Barkun A. Assessment of reasons for non-adherence to nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) guidelines [Abstract P383]. Presented at the American College of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting, 12–17 October 2007, Philadelphia.
Atkins
D
Best
D
Briss
PA
Eccles
M
Falck-Ytter
Y
Flottorp
S
et al.
GRADE Working Group
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
BMJ
2004
328
1490
.
PubMed
Guyatt
GH
Cook
DJ
Jaeschke
R
Pauker
SG
Schünemann
HJ
Grades of recommendation for antithrombotic agents: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).
Chest
2008
133
123S
131S
PubMed
Barkun
A
Bardou
M
Gralnek
I
Erythromycin and other prokinetics in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding? A meta-analysis [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Sreedharan
A
Martin
J
Leontiadis
G
Forman
D
Howden
C
Moayyedi
P
Does proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment initiated before endoscopy work in unselected upper gastrointestinal bleeding? A Cochrane systematic review update [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Barkun
A
Wyse
J
Romagnuolo
J
Gralnek
I
Bardou
M
Should we be performing routine second-look endoscopy in acute peptic ulcer bleeding in 2009? A meta-analysis [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Leontiadis
G
Martin
J
Sharma
V
Howden
C
Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding: an updated Cochrane meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Calvet
X
Barkun
A
Kuipers
E
Lanas
A
Bardou
M
Sung
J
Is H. pylori testing clinically useful in the acute setting of upper gastrointestinal bleeding? A systematic review [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Cook
DJ
Greengold
NL
Ellrodt
AG
Weingarten
SR
The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines.
Ann Intern Med
1997
127
210
6
PubMed
Dalkey
N
An experimental study of group opinion: the Delphi Method.
Futures
1969
408
26
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Policy on the Application for, and Implementation of, Clinical Practice Guidelines. Oakville, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Association of Gastroenterology; 2008. Accessed atwww.cag-acg.org/uploads/cpg%20guidelines%20v17june2008rev.pdfon 8 September 2009.
American Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. ACCME Standards for Commercial Support: Ethics Standards to Ensure the Independence of CME Activities. Chicago: American Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education; 2007. Accessed atwww.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_upload/68b2902a-fb73-44d1-8725-80a1504e520c_uploaddocument.pdfon 23 November 2009.
Canadian Medical Association. Guidelines for Physicians in Interaction with Industry. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Medical Association; 2007. Accessed athttp://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD08-01.pdfon 23 November 2009.
Almela
P
Benages
A
Peiró
S
Añón
R
Pérez
MM
Peña
A
et al.
A risk score system for identification of patients with upper-GI bleeding suitable for outpatient management.
Gastrointest Endosc
2004
59
772
81
PubMed
Imperiale
TF
Dominitz
JA
Provenzale
DT
Boes
LP
Rose
CM
Bowers
JC
et al.
Predicting poor outcome from acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
Arch Intern Med
2007
167
1291
6
PubMed
Blatchford
O
Murray
WR
Blatchford
M
A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage.
Lancet
2000
356
1318
21
PubMed
Rockall
TA
Logan
RF
Devlin
HB
Northfield
TC
Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.
Gut
1996
38
316
21
PubMed
Masaoka
T
Suzuki
H
Hori
S
Aikawa
N
Hibi
T
Blatchford scoring system is a useful scoring system for detecting patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who do not need endoscopic intervention.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2007
22
1404
8
PubMed
Robins
GG
Sarwar
MS
Armstrong
M
Denyer
ME
Bush
S
Hassan
T
et al.
Evaluation of the need for endoscopy to identify low-risk patients presenting with an acute upper gastrointestinal bleed suitable for early discharge.
Postgrad Med J
2007
83
768
72
PubMed
Stanley
AJ
Ashley
D
Dalton
HR
Mowat
C
Gaya
DR
Thompson
E
et al.
Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation.
Lancet
2009
373
42
7
PubMed
Romagnuolo
J
Barkun
AN
Enns
R
Armstrong
D
Gregor
J
Simple clinical predictors may obviate urgent endoscopy in selected patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding.
Arch Intern Med
2007
167
265
70
PubMed
Chen
IC
Hung
MS
Chiu
TF
Chen
JC
Hsiao
CT
Risk scoring systems to predict need for clinical intervention for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding.
Am J Emerg Med
2007
25
774
9
PubMed
Lin
HJ
Perng
CL
Lee
FY
Lee
CH
Lee
SD
Clinical courses and predictors for rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcers and non-bleeding visible vessels: a prospective study.
Gut
1994
35
1389
93
PubMed
Villanueva
C
Balanzó
J
Espinós
JC
Domenech
JM
Sáinz
S
Call
J
et al.
Prediction of therapeutic failure in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated with endoscopic injection.
Dig Dis Sci
1993
38
2062
70
PubMed
Brullet
E
Campo
R
Calvet
X
Coroleu
D
Rivero
E
Simó Deu
J
Factors related to the failure of endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding gastric ulcer.
Gut
1996
39
155
8
PubMed
Lai
KH
Peng
SN
Guo
WS
Lee
FY
Chang
FY
Malik
U
et al.
Endoscopic injection for the treatment of bleeding ulcers: local tamponade or drug effect?
Endoscopy
1994
26
338
41
PubMed
Camellini
L
Merighi
A
Pagnini
C
Azzolini
F
Guazzetti
S
Scarcelli
A
et al.
Comparison of three different risk scoring systems in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Dig Liver Dis
2004
36
271
7
PubMed
Vreeburg
EM
Terwee
CB
Snel
P
Rauws
EA
Bartelsman
JF
Meulen
JH
et al.
Validation of the Rockall risk scoring system in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Gut
1999
44
331
5
PubMed
Enns
RA
Gagnon
YM
Barkun
AN
Armstrong
D
Gregor
JC
Fedorak
RN
RUGBE Investigators Group
Validation of the Rockall scoring system for outcomes from non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a Canadian setting.
World J Gastroenterol
2006
12
7779
85
PubMed
Church
NI
Dallal
HJ
Masson
J
Mowat
Johnston
DA
Radin
E
et al.
Validity of the Rockall scoring system after endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective cohort study.
Gastrointest Endosc
2006
63
606
12
PubMed
Soncini
M
Triossi
O
Leo
P
Magni
G
Bertelè
AM
Grasso
T
et al.
Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage before and after the adoption of the Rockall score, in the Italian Gastroenterology Units.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2007
19
543
7
PubMed
American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Adjuvant Therapies
Practice guidelines for perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Adjuvant Therapies.
Anesthesiology
2006
105
198
208
PubMed
Marik
PE
Corwin
HL
Efficacy of red blood cell transfusion in the critically ill: a systematic review of the literature.
Crit Care Med
2008
36
2667
74
PubMed
Dellinger
RP
Levy
MM
Carlet
JM
Bion
J
Parker
MM
Jaeschke
R
et al.
International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.
Crit Care Med
2008
36
296
327
PubMed
Hébert
PC
Wells
G
Blajchman
MA
Marshall
J
Martin
C
Pagliarello
G
et al.
A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.
N Engl J Med
1999
340
409
17
PubMed
Bellotto
F
Fagiuoli
S
Pavei
A
Gregory
SA
Cati
A
Silverj
E
et al.
Anemia and ischemia: myocardial injury in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.
Am J Med
2005
118
548
51
PubMed
Bracey
AW
Radovancevic
R
Riggs
SA
Houston
S
Cozart
H
Vaughn
WK
et al.
Lowering the hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in coronary artery bypass procedures: effect on patient outcome.
Transfusion
1999
39
1070
7
PubMed
Barkun
A
Bardou
M
Gralnek
I
Shingina
A
Razzaghi
A
Rostom
A
Impact of elevated INR and of low platelet count on outcomes in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2009
134
.
Wolf
AT
Wasan
SK
Saltzman
JR
Impact of anticoagulation on rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
Am J Gastroenterol
2007
102
290
6
PubMed
Baradarian
R
Ramdhaney
S
Chapalamadugu
R
Skoczylas
L
Wang
K
Rivilis
S
et al.
Early intensive resuscitation of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding decreases mortality.
Am J Gastroenterol
2004
99
619
22
PubMed
Choudari
CP
Rajgopal
C
Palmer
KR
Acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage in anticoagulated patients: diagnoses and response to endoscopic treatment.
Gut
1994
35
464
6
PubMed
Tripodi
A
Caldwell
SH
Hoffman
M
Trotter
JF
Sanyal
AJ
Review article: the prothrombin time test as a measure of bleeding risk and prognosis in liver disease.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2007
26
141
8
PubMed
Coffin
B
Pocard
M
Panis
Y
Riche
F
Lainé
MJ
Bitoun
A
et al.
Groupe des endoscopistes de garde á l'AP-HP
Erythromycin improves the quality of EGD in patients with acute upper GI bleeding: a randomized controlled study.
Gastrointest Endosc
2002
56
174
9
PubMed
Carbonell
N
Pauwels
A
Serfaty
L
Boelle
PY
Becquemont
L
Poupon
R
Erythromycin infusion prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.
Am J Gastroenterol
2006
101
1211
5
PubMed
Frossard
JL
Spahr
L
Queneau
PE
Giostra
E
Burckhardt
B
Ory
G
et al.
Erythromycin intravenous bolus infusion in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.
Gastroenterology
2002
123
17
23
PubMed
Habashi
S
Lambiase
L
Kottoor
R
Prokinetics infusion prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A randomized, controlled, double-blind & placebo-controlled trial [Abstract].
Am J Gastroenterol
2007
102
S526
.
Sussman
D
Deshpande
A
Parra
J
Ribeiro
A
Intravenous metoclopramide to increase mucosal visualization during endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized, controlled study [Abstract T1558].
Gastrointest Endosc
2008
67
AB247
.
Winstead
NS
Wilcox
CM
Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2007
26
1371
7
PubMed
Cipolletta
L
Bianco
MA
Rotondano
G
Marmo
R
Piscopo
R
Outpatient management for low-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding: a randomized controlled trial.
Gastrointest Endosc
2002
55
1
5
PubMed
Hsu
PI
Lai
KH
Lin
XZ
Yang
YF
Lin
M
Shin
JS
et al.
When to discharge patients with bleeding peptic ulcers: a prospective study of residual risk of rebleeding.
Gastrointest Endosc
1996
44
382
7
PubMed
Lai
KC
Hui
WM
Wong
BC
Ching
CK
Lam
SK
A retrospective and prospective study on the safety of discharging selected patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding on the same day as endoscopy.
Gastrointest Endosc
1997
45
26
30
PubMed
Longstreth
GF
Feitelberg
SP
Successful outpatient management of acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: use of practice guidelines in a large patient series.
Gastrointest Endosc
1998
47
219
22
PubMed
Gisbert
JP
Legido
J
Castel
I
Trapero
M
Cantero
J
Maté
J
et al.
Risk assessment and outpatient management in bleeding peptic ulcer.
J Clin Gastroenterol
2006
40
129
34
PubMed
Spiegel
BM
Vakil
NB
Ofman
JJ
Endoscopy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage: is sooner better? A systematic review.
Arch Intern Med
2001
161
1393
404
PubMed
Hay
JA
Maldonado
L
Weingarten
SR
Ellrodt
AG
Prospective evaluation of a clinical guideline recommending hospital length of stay in upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage.
JAMA
1997
278
2151
6
PubMed
Moreno
P
Jaurrieta
E
Aranda
H
Fabregat
J
Farran
L
Biondo
S
et al.
Efficacy and safety of an early discharge protocol in low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Am J Med
1998
105
176
81
PubMed
Oei
TT
Dulai
GS
Gralnek
IM
Chang
D
Kilbourne
AM
Sale
GA
Hospital care for low-risk patients with acute, nonvariceal upper GI hemorrhage: a comparison of neighboring community and tertiary care centers.
Am J Gastroenterol
2002
97
2271
8
PubMed
Bjorkman
DJ
Zaman
A
Fennerty
MB
Lieberman
D
Disario
JA
Guest-Warnick
G
Urgent vs. elective endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper-GI bleeding: an effectiveness study.
Gastrointest Endosc
2004
60
1
8
PubMed
Gralnek
IM
Barkun
AN
Bardou
M
Management of acute bleeding from a peptic ulcer.
N Engl J Med
2008
359
928
37
PubMed
Dorward
S
Sreedharan
A
Leontiadis
GI
Howden
CW
Moayyedi
P
Forman
D
Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2006
CD005415
.
PubMed
Naumovski-Mihalic
S
Katicic
M
Colic-Cvlje
V
Bozek
T
Prskalo
M
Sabaric
B
et al.
Intravenous proton pump inhibitor in ulcer bleeding in patients admitted to an intensive care unit [Abstract W1578].
Gastroenterology
2005
128
A641
.
Lau
JY
Leung
WK
Wu
JC
Chan
FK
Wong
VW
Chiu
PW
et al.
Omeprazole before endoscopy in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.
N Engl J Med
2007
356
1631
40
PubMed
Al-Sabah
S
Barkun
AN
Herba
K
Adam
V
Fallone
C
Mayrand
S
et al.
Cost-effectiveness of proton-pump inhibition before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2008
6
418
25
PubMed
Barkun
AN
Should every patient with suspected upper GI bleeding receive a proton pump inhibitor while awaiting endoscopy? [Editorial].
Gastrointest Endosc
2008
67
1064
6
PubMed
Tsoi
KK
Lau
JY
Sung
JJ
Cost-effectiveness analysis of high-dose omeprazole infusion before endoscopy for patients with upper-GI bleeding.
Gastrointest Endosc
2008
67
1056
63
PubMed
Leontiadis
GI
Sreedharan
A
Dorward
S
Barton
P
Delaney
B
Howden
CW
et al.
Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Health Technol Assess
2007
11
PubMed
Lin
HJ
Wang
K
Perng
CL
Chua
RT
Lee
FY
Lee
CH
et al.
Early or delayed endoscopy for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. A prospective randomized study.
J Clin Gastroenterol
1996
22
267
71
PubMed
Lee
JG
Turnipseed
S
Romano
PS
Vigil
H
Azari
R
Melnikoff
N
et al.
Endoscopy-based triage significantly reduces hospitalization rates and costs of treating upper GI bleeding: a randomized controlled trial.
Gastrointest Endosc
1999
50
755
61
PubMed
Rockall
TA
Logan
RF
Devlin
HB
Northfield
TC
Selection of patients for early discharge or outpatient care after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage.
Lancet
1996
347
1138
40
PubMed
Ananthakrishnan
AN
McGinley
EL
Saeian
K
Outcomes of weekend admissions for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a nationwide analysis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2009
7
296
302e1
PubMed
Cooper
GS
Kou
TD
Wong
RC
Use and impact of early endoscopy in elderly patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage: a population-based analysis.
Gastrointest Endosc
2009
70
229
35
PubMed
Tai
CM
Huang
SP
Wang
HP
Lee
TC
Chang
CY
Tu
CH
et al.
High-risk ED patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage undergoing emergency or urgent endoscopy: a retrospective analysis.
Am J Emerg Med
2007
25
273
8
PubMed
Targownik
LE
Murthy
S
Keyvani
L
Leeson
S
The role of rapid endoscopy for high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Can J Gastroenterol
2007
21
425
9
PubMed
Schacher
GM
Lesbros-Pantoflickova
D
Ortner
MA
Wasserfallen
JB
Blum
AL
Dorta
G
Is early endoscopy in the emergency room beneficial in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer? A “fortuitously controlled” study.
Endoscopy
2005
37
324
8
PubMed
Adamopoulos
AB
Baibas
NM
Efstathiou
SP
Tsioulos
DI
Mitromaras
AG
Tsami
AA
et al.
Differentiation between patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who need early urgent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and those who do not. A prospective study.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2003
15
381
7
PubMed
Lin
HJ
Wang
K
Perng
CL
Lee
FY
Lee
CH
Lee
SD
Natural history of bleeding peptic ulcers with a tightly adherent blood clot: a prospective observation.
Gastrointest Endosc
1996
43
470
3
PubMed
Laine
L
Stein
C
Sharma
V
A prospective outcome study of patients with clot in an ulcer and the effect of irrigation.
Gastrointest Endosc
1996
43
107
10
PubMed
Sung
JJ
Chan
FK
Lau
JY
Yung
MY
Leung
WK
Wu
JC
et al.
The effect of endoscopic therapy in patients receiving omeprazole for bleeding ulcers with nonbleeding visible vessels or adherent clots: a randomized comparison.
Ann Intern Med
2003
139
237
43
PubMed
Lau
JY
Chung
SC
Leung
JW
Lo
KK
Yung
MY
Li
AK
The evolution of stigmata of hemorrhage in bleeding peptic ulcers: a sequential endoscopic study.
Endoscopy
1998
30
513
8
PubMed
Bleau
BL
Gostout
CJ
Sherman
KE
Shaw
MJ
Harford
WV
Keate
RF
et al.
Recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer associated with adherent clot: a randomized study comparing endoscopic treatment with medical therapy.
Gastrointest Endosc
2002
56
1
6
PubMed
Jensen
DM
Kovacs
TO
Jutabha
R
Machicado
GA
Gralnek
IM
Savides
TJ
et al.
Randomized trial of medical or endoscopic therapy to prevent recurrent ulcer hemorrhage in patients with adherent clots.
Gastroenterology
2002
123
407
13
PubMed
Laine L, McQuaid KR. Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:33-47; quiz 1-2. [PMID: 18986845]
Kahi
CJ
Jensen
DM
Sung
JJ
Bleau
BL
Jung
HK
Eckert
G
et al.
Endoscopic therapy versus medical therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot: a meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology
2005
129
855
62
PubMed
Laine L. Systematic review of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with clots: Can a meta-analysis be misleading? [Letter]. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:2127; author reply 2127-8. [PMID: 16344090]
Marmo R, Rotondano G, Piscopo R, Bianco MA, D'Angella R, Cipolletta L. Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:279-89; quiz 469. [PMID: 17311650]
Sung
JJ
Tsoi
KK
Lai
LH
Wu
JC
Lau
JY
Endoscopic clipping versus injection and thermo-coagulation in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.
Gut
2007
56
1364
73
PubMed
Yuan
Y
Wang
C
Hunt
RH
Endoscopic clipping for acute nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials.
Gastrointest Endosc
2008
68
339
51
PubMed
Vergara
M
Calvet
X
Gisbert
JP
Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high risk bleeding ulcers.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2007
CD005584
.
PubMed
Barkun
AN
Martel
M
Toubouti
Y
Rahme
E
Bardou
M
Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses.
Gastrointest Endosc
2009
69
786
99
PubMed
Calvet
X
Vergara
M
Brullet
E
Gisbert
JP
Campo
R
Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers.
Gastroenterology
2004
126
441
50
PubMed
Gevers
AM
De Goede
E
Simoens
M
Hiele
M
Rutgeerts
P
A randomized trial comparing injection therapy with hemoclip and with injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding ulcers.
Gastrointest Endosc
2002
55
466
9
PubMed
Chung
SC
Leung
JW
Sung
JY
Lo
KK
Li
AK
Injection or heat probe for bleeding ulcer.
Gastroenterology
1991
100
33
7
PubMed
Chiu
PW
Lam
CY
Lee
SW
Kwong
KH
Lam
SH
Lee
DT
et al.
Effect of scheduled second therapeutic endoscopy on peptic ulcer rebleeding: a prospective randomised trial.
Gut
2003
52
1403
7
PubMed
Messmann
H
Schaller
P
Andus
T
Lock
G
Vogt
W
Gross
V
et al.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Endoscopy
1998
30
583
9
PubMed
Villanueva
C
Balanzó
J
Torras
X
Soriano
G
Sáinz
S
Vilardell
F
Value of second-look endoscopy after injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective and randomized trial.
Gastrointest Endosc
1994
40
34
9
PubMed
Saeed
ZA
Cole
RA
Ramirez
FC
Schneider
FE
Hepps
KS
Graham
DY
Endoscopic retreatment after successful initial hemostasis prevents ulcer rebleeding: a prospective randomized trial.
Endoscopy
1996
28
288
94
PubMed
Rutgeerts
P
Rauws
E
Wara
P
Swain
P
Hoos
A
Solleder
E
et al.
Randomised trial of single and repeated fibrin glue compared with injection of polidocanol in treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.
Lancet
1997
350
692
6
PubMed
Chiu
P
Choi
C
Kwong
KH
Lam
S
The effect of scheduled second endoscopy against intravenous high dose omeprazole infusion as an adjunct to therapeutic endoscopy in prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding—a prospective randomized study [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2006
130
A121
.
Lee
S
Cho
C
Tak
W
Kweon
Y
Kim
S
Choi
Y
The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2005
128
A639
.
Lin
C
Lai
K
Lo
G
Cheng
J
Huang
R
Hsu
P
et al.
The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection for bleeding peptic ulcer [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
1996
110
A177
.
Ell
C
German Study Group
Scheduled endoscopic retreatment vs. single injection therapy in bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers: results of a multicenter study [Abstract].
Gastrointest Endosc
1998
47
A883
.
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.
Gastrointest Endosc
2003
57
62
7
PubMed
Chiu
PY
Lau
TS
Kwong
KH
Suen
DK
Kwok
SY
Impact of programmed second endoscopy with appropriate re-treatment on peptic ulcer bleeding: A systematic review.
Ann Coll Surg H-K
2003
7
106
15
Tsoi
K
Chan
H
Pao
C
Chiu
P
Sung
J
Is second-look endoscopy with heater probe or injection for peptic ulcer bleeding necessary [Abstract]?
Gut
2008
57
A355
.
Spiegel
BM
Ofman
JJ
Woods
K
Vakil
NB
Minimizing recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis: the cost-effectiveness of competing strategies.
Am J Gastroenterol
2003
98
86
97
PubMed
Romagnuolo
J
Routine second look endoscopy: ineffective, costly and potentially misleading.
Can J Gastroenterol
2004
18
401
4
PubMed
Leontiadis
GI
Sharma
VK
Howden
CW
Proton pump inhibitor treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2006
CD002094
.
PubMed
Sung
JJ
Barkun
A
Kuipers
EJ
Mössner
J
Jensen
DM
Stuart
R
et al.
Peptic Ulcer Bleed Study Group
Intravenous esomeprazole for prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding: a randomized trial.
Ann Intern Med
2009
150
455
64
PubMed
Wei
KL
Tung
SY
Sheen
CH
Chang
TS
Lee
IL
Wu
CS
Effect of oral esomeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2007
22
43
6
PubMed
Naumovski-Mihalic
S
Katicic
M
Bozek
T
Colic-Cvlje
V
Sabaric
B
Prskalo
M
et al.
Gastric acid suppression in acute ulcer bleeding in patients with comorbid illness [Abstract].
Gut
2007
56
A234
.
Lin
HJ
Lo
WC
Cheng
YC
Perng
CL
Role of intravenous omeprazole in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection: a prospective randomized comparative trial.
Am J Gastroenterol
2006
101
500
5
PubMed
Zargar
SA
Javid
G
Khan
BA
Yattoo
GN
Shah
AH
Gulzar
GM
et al.
Pantoprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: prospective randomized controlled trial.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2006
21
716
21
PubMed
Khoshbaten
M
Fattahi
E
Naderi
N
Khaleghian
F
Rezailashkajani
M
A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of duodenal peptic ulcer.
BMC Gastroenterol
2006
6
2
.
PubMed
Hsu
PI
Lo
GH
Lo
CC
Lin
CK
Chan
HH
Wu
CJ
et al.
Intravenous pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers.
World J Gastroenterol
2004
10
3666
9
PubMed
Barkun
AN
Herba
K
Adam
V
Kennedy
W
Fallone
CA
Bardou
M
High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition following endoscopic therapy in the acute management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers in the USA and Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2004
19
591
600
PubMed
Lee
KK
You
JH
Wong
IC
Kwong
SK
Lau
JY
Chan
TY
et al.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of high-dose omeprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.
Gastrointest Endosc
2003
57
160
4
PubMed
Erstad
BL
Cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor therapy for acute peptic ulcer-related bleeding.
Crit Care Med
2004
32
1277
83
PubMed
Focareta
R
Ciarleglio
A
Piai
G
Ievoli
F
Forte
G
Proton-pump inhibitor and acute peptic ulcer bleeding: effectiveness of oral esomeprazole vs. intravenous omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding [Abstract].
Dig Liver Dis
2004
36
S250
.
Jang
J
Dong
S
Jung
J
Chae
M
Kim
N
Lee
S
et al.
High-dose oral proton pump inhibitor is as effective as intravenous administration in the aspect of increasing pH and reducing rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2006
103
A467
.
Bajaj
JS
Dua
KS
Hanson
K
Presberg
K
Prospective, randomized trial comparing effect of oral versus intravenous pantoprazole on rebleeding after nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a pilot study.
Dig Dis Sci
2007
52
2190
4
PubMed
Dial
S
Alrasadi
K
Manoukian
C
Huang
A
Menzies
D
Risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhea among hospital inpatients prescribed proton pump inhibitors: cohort and case-control studies.
CMAJ
2004
171
33
8
PubMed
Aseeri
M
Schroeder
T
Kramer
J
Zackula
R
Gastric acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients.
Am J Gastroenterol
2008
103
2308
13
PubMed
Lau
JY
Sung
JJ
Lee
KK
Yung
MY
Wong
SK
Wu
JC
et al.
Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.
N Engl J Med
2000
343
310
6
PubMed
Jensen DM, Pace SC, Soffer E, Comer GM; 315 Study Group. Continuous infusion of pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of ulcer rebleeding: a U.S. multicenter randomized, double-blind study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1991-9; quiz 2170. [PMID: 16968504]
Lin
HJ
Lo
WC
Lee
FY
Perng
CL
Tseng
GY
A prospective randomized comparative trial showing that omeprazole prevents rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after successful endoscopic therapy.
Arch Intern Med
1998
158
54
8
PubMed
Klok
RM
Postma
MJ
van Hout
BA
Brouwers
JR
Meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in short-term use.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2003
17
1237
45
PubMed
Armstrong
D
Marshall
JK
Chiba
N
Enns
R
Fallone
CA
Fass
R
et al.
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology GERD Consensus Group
Canadian Consensus Conference on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults-update 2004.
Can J Gastroenterol
2005
19
15
35
PubMed
Dial
S
Delaney
JA
Barkun
AN
Suissa
S
Use of gastric acid-suppressive agents and the risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated disease.
JAMA
2005
294
2989
95
PubMed
Roughead
EE
Ramsay
EN
Pratt
NL
Ryan
P
Gilbert
AL
Proton-pump inhibitors and the risk of antibiotic use and hospitalisation for pneumonia.
Med J Aust
2009
190
114
6
PubMed
Targownik
LE
Lix
LM
Metge
CJ
Prior
HJ
Leung
S
Leslie
WD
Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of osteoporosis-related fractures.
CMAJ
2008
179
319
26
PubMed
Hsu
PI
Lin
XZ
Chan
SH
Lin
CY
Chang
TT
Shin
JS
et al.
Bleeding peptic ulcer—risk factors for rebleeding and sequential changes in endoscopic findings.
Gut
1994
35
746
9
PubMed
Brullet
E
Campo
R
Calvet
X
Guell
M
Garcia-Monforte
N
Cabrol
J
A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection.
Gastrointest Endosc
2004
60
15
21
PubMed
Cooper
GS
Kou
TD
Wong
RC
Outpatient management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: unexpected mortality in Medicare beneficiaries.
Gastroenterology
2009
136
108
14
PubMed
Elmunzer BJ, Young SD, Inadomi JM, Schoenfeld P, Laine L. Systematic review of the predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostatic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2625-32; quiz 2633. [PMID: 18684171]
Chiu PW, Ng EK, Cheung FK, Chan FK, Leung WK, Wu JC, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:311-6; quiz 253. [PMID: 18955161]
Romagnuolo
J
Flemons
WW
Perkins
L
Lutz
L
Jamieson
PC
Hiscock
CA
et al.
Post-endoscopy checklist reduces length of stay for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Int J Qual Health Care
2005
17
249
54
PubMed
Kim
S
Duddalwar
V
Failed endoscopic therapy and the interventional radiologist: non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Tech Gastrointest Endosc
2005
7
148
55
Ljungdahl
M
Eriksson
LG
Nyman
R
Gustavsson
S
Arterial embolisation in management of massive bleeding from gastric and duodenal ulcers.
Eur J Surg
2002
168
384
90
PubMed
Defreyne
L
Vanlangenhove
P
De Vos
M
Pattyn
P
Van Maele
G
Decruyenaere
J
et al.
Embolization as a first approach with endoscopically unmanageable acute nonvariceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
Radiology
2001
218
739
48
PubMed
Toyoda
H
Nakano
S
Takeda
I
Kumada
T
Sugiyama
K
Osada
T
et al.
Transcatheter arterial embolization for massive bleeding from duodenal ulcers not controlled by endoscopic hemostasis.
Endoscopy
1995
27
304
7
PubMed
Holme
JB
Nielsen
DT
Funch-Jensen
P
Mortensen
FV
Transcatheter arterial embolization in patients with bleeding duodenal ulcer: an alternative to surgery.
Acta Radiol
2006
47
244
7
PubMed
Loffroy
R
Guiu
B
Cercueil
JP
Lepage
C
Latournerie
M
Hillon
P
et al.
Refractory bleeding from gastroduodenal ulcers: arterial embolization in high-operative-risk patients.
J Clin Gastroenterol
2008
42
361
7
PubMed
Ripoll
C
Bañares
R
Beceiro
I
Menchén
P
Catalina
MV
Echenagusia
A
et al.
Comparison of transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer after endoscopic treatment failure.
J Vasc Interv Radiol
2004
15
447
50
PubMed
Poultsides
GA
Kim
CJ
Orlando
R
3rd
Peros
G
Hallisey
MJ
Vignati
PV
Angiographic embolization for gastroduodenal hemorrhage: safety, efficacy, and predictors of outcome.
Arch Surg
2008
143
457
61
PubMed
Lau
JY
Sung
JJ
Lam
YH
Chan
AC
Ng
EK
Lee
DW
et al.
Endoscopic retreatment compared with surgery in patients with recurrent bleeding after initial endoscopic control of bleeding ulcers.
N Engl J Med
1999
340
751
6
PubMed
Gisbert
JP
Khorrami
S
Carballo
F
Calvet
X
Gene
E
Dominguez-Muñoz
E
Meta-analysis: Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2004
19
617
29
PubMed
Gisbert
JP
Abraira
V
Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Am J Gastroenterol
2006
101
848
63
PubMed
Wildner-Christensen
M
Touborg Lassen
A
Lindebjerg
J
Schaffalitzky de Muckadell
OB
Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori in bleeding peptic ulcer patients, evaluation of urea-based tests.
Digestion
2002
66
9
13
PubMed
Tu
TC
Lee
CL
Wu
CH
Chen
TK
Chan
CC
Huang
SH
et al.
Comparison of invasive and noninvasive tests for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection in bleeding peptic ulcers.
Gastrointest Endosc
1999
49
302
6
PubMed
Griñó
P
Pascual
S
Such
J
Casellas
JA
Niveiro
M
Andreu
M
et al.
Comparison of diagnostic methods for Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Scand J Gastroenterol
2001
36
1254
8
PubMed
Chung
IK
Hong
SJ
Kim
EJ
Cho
JY
Kim
HS
Park
SH
et al.
What is the best method to diagnose Helicobacter infection in bleeding peptic ulcers?: a prospective trial.
Korean J Intern Med
2001
16
147
52
PubMed
Peitz
U
Leodolter
A
Kahl
S
Agha-Amiri
K
Wex
T
Wolle
K
et al.
Antigen stool test for assessment of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2003
17
1075
84
PubMed
Griñó
P
Pascual
S
Such
J
Casellas
JA
Niveiro
M
Andreu
M
et al.
Comparison of stool immunoassay with standard methods for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper-gastrointestinal bleeding of peptic origin.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2003
15
525
9
PubMed
Lo
CC
Lai
KH
Peng
NJ
Lo
GH
Tseng
HH
Lin
CK
et al.
Polymerase chain reaction: a sensitive method for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection in bleeding peptic ulcers.
World J Gastroenterol
2005
11
3909
14
PubMed
Hanvivatvong
O
Thong-Ngam
D
Kuakarn
S
Mahachai
V
Evaluation of Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test in Thai patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
J Med Assoc Thai
2006
89
Suppl 3
S98
103
PubMed
Güell
M
Artigau
E
Esteve
V
Sánchez-Delgado
J
Junquera
F
Calvet
X
Usefulness of a delayed test for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in bleeding peptic ulcer.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2006
23
53
9
PubMed
Liao
CC
Lee
CL
Lai
YC
Huang
SH
Lee
SC
Wu
CH
et al.
Accuracy of three diagnostic tests used alone and in combination for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with bleeding gastric ulcers.
Chin Med J (Engl)
2003
116
1821
6
PubMed
Colin
R
Czernichow
P
Baty
V
Touzé
I
Brazier
F
Bretagne
JF
et al.
Low sensitivity of invasive tests for the detection of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with bleeding ulcer.
Gastroenterol Clin Biol
2000
24
31
5
PubMed
Lee
JM
Breslin
NP
Fallon
C
O'Morain
CA
Rapid urease tests lack sensitivity in Helicobacter pylori diagnosis when peptic ulcer disease presents with bleeding.
Am J Gastroenterol
2000
95
1166
70
PubMed
van Leerdam
ME
van der Ende
A
ten Kate
FJ
Rauws
EA
Tytgat
GN
Lack of accuracy of the noninvasive Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test in patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding.
Am J Gastroenterol
2003
98
798
801
PubMed
Castro-Fernández
M
Sánchez-Muñoz
D
García-Díaz
E
Miralles-Sanchiz
J
Vargas-Romero
J
Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with bleeding ulcer disease: rapid urease test and histology.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig
2004
96
PubMed
Gisbert
JP
Esteban
C
Jimenez
I
Moreno-Otero
R
13C-urea breath test during hospitalization for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in peptic ulcer bleeding.
Helicobacter
2007
12
231
7
PubMed
Winiarski
M
Bielanski
W
Plonka
M
Dobrzanska
M
Kaminska
A
Bobrzynski
A
et al.
The usefulness of capsulated 13C-urea breath test in diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
J Clin Gastroenterol
2003
37
34
8
PubMed
Liao
C
Biopsy-based diagnostic test lack sensitivity for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with bleeding duodenal ulcers [Abstract].
Gut
2001
49
A102
.
Schilling
D
Demel
A
Adamek
HE
Nüsse
T
Weidmann
E
Riemann
JF
A negative rapid urease test is unreliable for exclusion of Helicobacter pylori infection during acute phase of ulcer bleeding. A prospective case control study.
Dig Liver Dis
2003
35
217
21
PubMed
Lai
K
Hui
W
Lam
S
Bleeding ulcers have high false negative rates for antral Helicobacter pylori when tested with urease test [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
1996
110
A167
.
Archimandritis
A
Tzivras
M
Sougioultzis
S
Papaparaskevas
I
Apostolopoulos
P
Avlami
A
et al.
Rapid urease test is less sensitive than histology in diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2000
15
369
73
PubMed
Gisbert
JP
Trapero
M
Calvet
X
Mendoza
J
Quesada
M
Güell
M
et al.
Evaluation of three different tests for the detection of stool antigens to diagnose Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2004
19
923
9
PubMed
Lin
HJ
Lo
WC
Perng
CL
Li
AF
Tseng
GY
Sun
IC
et al.
Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.
Helicobacter
2004
9
663
8
PubMed
Demiray
E
Yilmaz
O
Sarkis
C
Soyturk
M
Simsek
I
Comparison of invasive methods and two different stool antigen tests for diagnosis of H. pylori infection in patients with gastric bleeding.
World J Gastroenterol
2006
12
4206
10
PubMed
Rostom
A
Moayyedi
P
Hunt
R
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Consensus Group
Canadian consensus guidelines on long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy and the need for gastroprotection: benefits versus risks.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2009
29
481
96
PubMed
Bhatt
DL
Scheiman
J
Abraham
NS
Antman
EM
Chan
FK
Furberg
CD
et al.
American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents
ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents.
Circulation
2008
118
1894
909
PubMed
Chan
FK
Abraham
NS
Scheiman
JM
Laine
L
First International Working Party on Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular Effects of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Anti-platelet Agents
Management of patients on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a clinical practice recommendation from the First International Working Party on Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular Effects of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Anti-platelet Agents.
Am J Gastroenterol
2008
103
2908
18
PubMed
Chan
FK
Hung
LC
Suen
BY
Wong
VW
Hui
AJ
Wu
JC
et al.
Celecoxib versus diclofenac plus omeprazole in high-risk arthritis patients: results of a randomized double-blind trial.
Gastroenterology
2004
127
1038
43
PubMed
Chan
FK
Hung
LC
Suen
BY
Wu
JC
Lee
KC
Leung
VK
et al.
Celecoxib versus diclofenac and omeprazole in reducing the risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients with arthritis.
N Engl J Med
2002
347
2104
10
PubMed
Lai
KC
Chu
KM
Hui
WM
Wong
BC
Hu
WH
Wong
WM
et al.
Celecoxib compared with lansoprazole and naproxen to prevent gastrointestinal ulcer complications.
Am J Med
2005
118
1271
8
PubMed
Targownik
LE
Metge
CJ
Leung
S
Chateau
DG
The relative efficacies of gastroprotective strategies in chronic users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Gastroenterology
2008
134
937
44
PubMed
Rahme
E
Barkun
AN
Toubouti
Y
Scalera
A
Rochon
S
Lelorier
J
Do proton-pump inhibitors confer additional gastrointestinal protection in patients given celecoxib?
Arthritis Rheum
2007
57
748
55
PubMed
Chan
FK
Wong
VW
Suen
BY
Wu
JC
Ching
JY
Hung
LC
et al.
Combination of a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor and a proton-pump inhibitor for prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in patients at very high risk: a double-blind, randomised trial.
Lancet
2007
369
1621
6
PubMed
Laine
L
Curtis
SP
Cryer
B
Kaur
A
Cannon
CP
MEDAL Steering Committee
Assessment of upper gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison.
Lancet
2007
369
465
73
PubMed
Chan
F
Wong
V
Wu
J
Sung
J
Combination of a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective NSAID and a proton pump inhibitor for prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers in very high risk patients: a one-year, double-blind, randomized trial [Abstract].
Gastroenterology
2008
134
A114
.
Scheiman
JM
Yeomans
ND
Talley
NJ
Vakil
N
Chan
FK
Tulassay
Z
et al.
Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors.
Am J Gastroenterol
2006
101
701
10
PubMed
Kearney
PM
Baigent
C
Godwin
J
Halls
H
Emberson
JR
Patrono
C
Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BMJ
2006
332
1302
8
PubMed
Rostom
A
Dubé
C
Lewin
G
Tsertsvadze
A
Barrowman
N
Code
C
et al.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: a systematic review prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Ann Intern Med
2007
146
376
89
PubMed
Maetzel
A
Krahn
M
Naglie
G
The cost effectiveness of rofecoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum
2003
49
283
92
PubMed
El-Serag
HB
Graham
DY
Richardson
P
Inadomi
JM
Prevention of complicated ulcer disease among chronic users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: the use of a nomogram in cost-effectiveness analysis.
Arch Intern Med
2002
162
2105
10
PubMed
Spiegel
BM
Chiou
CF
Ofman
JJ
Minimizing complications from nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: cost-effectiveness of competing strategies in varying risk groups.
Arthritis Rheum
2005
53
185
97
PubMed
Aguejouf
O
Eizayaga
F
Desplat
V
Belon
P
Doutremepuich
C
Prothrombotic and hemorrhagic effects of aspirin.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost
2009
15
523
8
PubMed
Biondi-Zoccai
GG
Lotrionte
M
Agostoni
P
Abbate
A
Fusaro
M
Burzotta
F
et al.
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the hazards of discontinuing or not adhering to aspirin among 50,279 patients at risk for coronary artery disease.
Eur Heart J
2006
27
2667
74
PubMed
Sibon
I
Orgogozo
JM
Antiplatelet drug discontinuation is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.
Neurology
2004
62
1187
9
PubMed
Burger
W
Chemnitius
JM
Kneissl
GD
Rücker
G
Low-dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention-cardiovascular risks after its perioperative withdrawal versus bleeding risks with its continuation-review and meta-analysis.
J Intern Med
2005
257
399
414
PubMed
Sung
J
Lau
J
Ching
J
Leung
W
Wu
J
Leung
V
et al.
Early reintroduction of aspirin with proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding: final results of a double blinded randomized study [Abstract OP-G-121].
Gut
2007
56
A27
.
Ng
FH
Wong
BC
Wong
SY
Chen
WH
Chang
CM
Clopidogrel plus omeprazole compared with aspirin plus omeprazole for aspirin-induced symptomatic peptic ulcers/erosions with low to moderate bleeding/re-bleeding risk — a single-blind, randomized controlled study.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2004
19
359
65
PubMed
Chan
FK
Ching
JY
Hung
LC
Wong
VW
Leung
VK
Kung
NN
et al.
Clopidogrel versus aspirin and esomeprazole to prevent recurrent ulcer bleeding.
N Engl J Med
2005
352
238
44
PubMed
Lai
KC
Chu
KM
Hui
WM
Wong
BC
Hung
WK
Loo
CK
et al.
Esomeprazole with aspirin versus clopidogrel for prevention of recurrent gastrointestinal ulcer complications.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2006
4
860
5
PubMed
Small
DS
Farid
Payne
CD
Weerakkody
GJ
Li
YG
Brandt
JT
et al.
Effects of the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel and clopidogrel.
J Clin Pharmacol
2008
48
475
84
PubMed
Gilard
M
Arnaud
B
Cornily
JC
Le Gal
G
Lacut
K
Le Calvez
G
et al.
Influence of omeprazole on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel associated with aspirin: the randomized, double-blind OCLA (Omeprazole CLopidogrel Aspirin) study.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2008
51
256
60
PubMed
O'Donoghue
ML
Braunwald
E
Antman
EM
Murphy
SA
Bates
ER
Rozenman
Y
et al.
Pharmacodynamic effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel and prasugrel with or without a proton-pump inhibitor: an analysis of two randomised trials.
Lancet
2009
374
989
97
PubMed
Sadowski DC. Proton Pump Inhibitors and Clopidogrel—What is the Current Status? Oakville, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Association of Gastroenterology; 2009. Accessed atwww.cag-acg.org/uploads/ppis&clopidogreltalkingpoints.pdfon 17 November 2009.
Chong
E
Ensom
MH
Pharmacogenetics of the proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review.
Pharmacotherapy
2003
23
460
71
PubMed
Moayyedi
P
Sadowski
DC
Proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel-hazardous drug interaction or hazardous interpretation of data? [Editorial].
Can J Gastroenterol
2009
23
251
2
PubMed
Juurlink
DN
Gomes
T
Ko
DT
Szmitko
PE
Austin
PC
Tu
JV
et al.
A population-based study of the drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel.
CMAJ
2009
180
713
8
PubMed
Ho
PM
Maddox
TM
Wang
L
Fihn
SD
Jesse
RL
Peterson
ED
et al.
Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome.
JAMA
2009
301
937
44
PubMed
Dunn
S
Macaulay
T
Brennan
D
Campbell
C
Charnigo
R
Smyth
S
et al.
Baseline proton pump inhibitor use is associated with increased cardiovascular events with and without the use of clopidogrel in the CREDO trial [Abstract].
Circulation
2008
118
S815
.
Simon
T
Verstuyft
C
Mary-Krause
M
Quteineh
L
Drouet
E
Méneveau
N
et al.
French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) Investigators
Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events.
N Engl J Med
2009
360
363
75
PubMed
American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American Heart Association (AHA). Joint comment on studies regarding possible interaction of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors [News release]. Dallas: American Heart Assoc; 11 November 2008. Accessed athttp://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=611on 17 November 2009.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate) 75 mg tablets. Detailed view: safety labeling changes approved by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)—May 2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2009. Accessed atwww.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ucm165166.htmon 17 November 2009.
Shi
S
Klotz
U
Proton pump inhibitors: an update of their clinical use and pharmacokinetics.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol
2008
64
935
51
PubMed

Appendix 1: List of Attendees, International Consensus Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Conference Group

Nonvoting chair: Richard Hunt, Canada.

Voting steering committee: Alan N. Barkun, Canada; Marc Bardou, France; Ernst J. Kuipers, the Netherlands; Joseph Sung, Hong Kong.

Voting participants: Lars Agreus, Sweden; David Armstrong, Canada; Xavier Calvet, Spain; Naoki Chiba, Canada; Livio Cipolletta, Italy; Henry Cohen, Uruguay; Robert Enns, Canada; Lars-Gunnar Ericsson, Sweden; Ian Gralnek, Israel; Dennis Jensen, United States; Michio Kaminishi, Japan; Fasiha Kanwal, United States; Loren Laine, United States; Angel Lanas, Spain; James Lau, Hong Kong; Grigoris Leontiadis, Greece; Lars Lundell, Sweden; Peter Malfertheiner, Germany; John Marshall, Canada; Janet Martin, Canada; David Metz, United States; Paul Moayyedi, Canada; Jean-Pierre Quenot, France; Erik Rauws, the Netherlands; Joseph Romagnuolo, United States; Alaa Rostom, Canada; Brennan Spiegel, United States; Frances Tse, Canada; Monique Van Leerdam, the Netherlands; and Christo Van Rensburg, South Africa.

Nonvoting ethics expert: Derek J. Jones, Canada.

Represented societies: Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy, European Association for Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Asociación Interamericana de Gastroenterología.

Nonvoting observers: Andres Gardeazabal, Canada; István Rácz, Hungary; Pauline Lavigne, United States; and Paul Sinclair, Canada.

Appendix 2

Statements Identified as Having Potential for Conflict of Interest and Participants Who Were Recused From the Discussions

Statement A8: David Armstrong, Lars Agreus, Angel Lanas, Xavier Calvet, Joseph Romagnuolo, Alan Barkun, Ernst Kuipers, Joseph Sung, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Henry Cohen, Paul Moayyedi, and David Metz.

Statement B10: None.

Statement C3: David Armstrong, Lars Agreus, Angel Lanas, Xavier Calvet, Joseph Romagnuolo, Alan Barkun, Ernst Kuipers, Joseph Sung, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Henry Cohen, Paul Moayyedi, and David Metz.

Statement C4: David Armstrong, Lars Agreus, Peter Malfertheiner, Michio Kaminishi, Dennis Jensen, Angel Lanas, Joseph Romagnuolo, Alan Barkun, Ernst Kuipers, Joseph Sung, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Henry Cohen, Paul Moayyedi, and David Metz.

Statement E1: Lars Agreus, Angel Lanas, Alan Barkun, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Brennan Spiegel, Paul Moayyedi, David Metz.

Statement E2: David Armstrong, Lars Agreus, Angel Lanas, Joseph Romagnuolo, Alan Barkun, Ernst Kuipers, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Brennan Spiegel, Paul Moayyedi, and David Metz.

Statement E3: None.

Statement E4: David Armstrong, Lars Agreus, Angel Lanas, Joseph Romagnuolo, Alan Barkun, Ernst Kuipers, Loren Laine, Rob Enns, Brennan Spiegel, and Paul Moayyedi.

Declaration of Personal Interests

Marc Bardou, Naoki Chiba, Livio Cipolletta, Lars-Gunnar Ericsson, Ian Gralnek, Fasiha Kanwal, Lars Lundell, Myriam Martel, Janet Martin, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Erik Rauws, Frances Tse, Monique Van Leerdam, and Christo Van Rensburg have no personal interests to declare.

Lars Agreus has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca and a consultant for Orexo AB and has received research support from AstraZeneca.

David Armstrong has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and Abbott and as a speaker for Nycomed and has received research support and funding for educational programs from AstraZeneca and Abbott.

Alan Barkun has served as both a speaker and a consultant and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Abbott.

Xavier Calvet has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca and Almirall-Prodesfarma and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Janssen-Cilag.

Henry Cohen has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and Roemmers.

Rob Enns has served as both a speaker and a consultant for Abbot, AstraZeneca, Given Imaging, Nycomed, Olympus, Proctor & Gamble, Schering-Plough, and UCB Pharma.

Richard Hunt has served as a consultant for Alevium Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Nycomed, Santarus, Schering-Plough, Steba Biotech, and TAP Pharmaceuticals; has received research support from Steba Biotech; and is CEO of Strategic Consultants International.

Dennis Jensen has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Ethicon Endosurgery, and Olympus.

Michio Kaminishi has served as a speaker for Taiho and Otsuka and has received research support from Esai, Otsuka, Taiho, Takeda, and Zeria.

Ernst Kuipers has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, and Nycomed.

Loren Laine has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Nicox, Pfizer, Pozen, and Santarus and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and TAP Pharmaceuticals.

Angel Lanas has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and Pfizer and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cogentus, and Pfizer.

James Lau has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca.

Grigoris Leontiadis has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca and sanofi-aventis and a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Given Imaging.

Peter Malfertheiner has served as a speaker for Abbott, AstraZeneca, and Nycomed.

John Marshall has served as both a speaker and a consultant for Abbott, Axcan, Proctor & Gamble, Schering-Plough, Shire, Solvay Pharma, and UCB Pharma and has served as a consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

David Metz has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Nycomed, Wyeth, and TAP Pharmaceuticals and has served as a speaker for Santarus and TAP Pharmaceuticals.

Paul Moayyedi has served as both a speaker and a consultant for AstraZeneca and Janssen Ortho and as a speaker for Nycomed and Esai and has received research support from AstraZeneca.

Joseph Romagnuolo has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and Olympus and has received research support from Lantheus Imaging and Ethicon Endosurgery.

Alaa Rostom has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca.

Paul Sinclair has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca.

Brennan Spiegel has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Prometheus Laboratories, and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals and a consultant for AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Phynova.

Joseph Sung has served as speaker for Nycomed and a consultant for AstraZeneca.

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

CME | January 19, 2010

Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (EXPIRED)

Start Activity for Practice

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More

PDF

Not Available

Citations

Related Point of Care

Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Annals of Internal Medicine; 159 (3): ITC2-1

Venous Leg Ulcers

Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (3): ITC17-ITC32

Osteoarthritis

Annals of Internal Medicine; 147 (3): ITC8-1

View MoreView Less

Clinical Guidelines |19 January 2010

International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Free

Abstract

Methods

Scope and Purpose

Stakeholder Involvement

Sources and Searches

Review and Grading of Evidence

Group Processes

Applicability

Ethics

Additional Domains Addressed by the Consensus Meeting

Role of the Funding Source

Recommendation Statements

Table.

Section A: Resuscitation, Risk Assessment, and Preendoscopy Management

Statement A2

Statement A4

Statement A5

Statement A6

Statement A7

Statement A8

Section B: Endoscopic Management

Statement B3

Statement B5

Statement B6

Statement B8

Statement B10

Statement B11

Section C: Pharmacologic Management

Statement C3

Statement C4

Section D: Nonendoscopic and Nonpharmacologic In-Hospital Management

Statement D2

Statement D4

Statement D5

Statement D6

Section E: Postdischarge, ASA, and NSAIDs

Statement E1

Statement E2

Statement E3

Statement E4

Future Directions

References

Appendix 1: List of Attendees, International Consensus Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Conference Group

Appendix 2

Statements Identified as Having Potential for Conflict of Interest and Participants Who Were Recused From the Discussions

Declaration of Personal Interests

Table.

Clinical Slide Sets

This feature is available only to Registered Users

0 Comments

See Also

Related Articles

Journal Club

Related Point of Care

Related Topics

Content

Information For

Services

Awards

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.