BACKGROUND: To investigate factors associated with risk for rebleeding and 30-day mortality following prophylactic transarterial embolization in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records and included all patients who had undergone prophylactic embolization of the gastroduodenal artery at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, following an endoscopy-verified and treated peptic Sulcer bleeding, from 2016 to 2021. Data were collected from electronic health records and imaging from the embolization procedures. Primary outcomes were rebleeding and 30-day mortality. We performed logistical regression analyses for both outcomes with possible risk factors. Risk factors included: active bleeding; visible hemoclips; Rockall-score; anatomical variants; standardized embolization procedure; and number of endoscopies prior to embolization.
RESULTS: We included 176 patients. Rebleeding occurred in 25% following embolization and 30-day mortality was 15%. Not undergoing a standardized embolization procedure increased the odds of both rebleeding (odds ratio 3.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.395-6.579) and 30-day overall mortality by 3.262 (1.252-8.497). More than one endoscopy was associated with increased odds of rebleeding (odds ratio 2.369, 95% CI 1.088-5.158). High Rockall-score increased the odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 2.587, 95% CI 1.243-5.386). Active bleeding, visible hemoclips, and anatomical variants did not affect risk of rebleeding or 30-day mortality. Reasons for deviation from standard embolization procedure were anatomical variations, targeted treatment without embolizing the gastroduodenal artery, and technical failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Deviation from the standard embolization procedure increased the risk of rebleeding and 30-day mortality, more than one endoscopy prior to embolization was associated with higher odds of rebleeding, and a high Rockall-score increased the risk of 30-day mortality. We suggest that patients with these risk factors are monitored closely following embolization. Early detection of rebleeding may allow for proper and early re-intervention.

Peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding occurs in 20% to 30% of patients after standard endoscopic hemostasis, particularly within 4 days after the procedure. The application of additional tranexamic acid (TXA) to the ulcer may enhance hemostasis. This study investigated the effectiveness of TXA powder application on bleeding ulcers during endoscopic hemostasis.
This study enrolled patients who had peptic ulcer bleeding between March 2022 and February 2023. After undergoing standard endoscopic therapy, the patients were randomly assigned to either the TXA group or the standard group. In the TXA group, an additional 1.25 g of TXA powder was sprayed endoscopically on the ulcer. Both groups then received 3 days of high-dose (8 mg/h) continuous infusion proton pump inhibitor therapy. Second-look endoscopy was conducted on days 3 to 4. The primary end point of early treatment failure was defined as ulcer recurrent bleeding within 4 days or major stigmata of recent hemorrhage on the second-look endoscopy.
Sixty patients (30 in each group) with peptic ulcer bleeding and balanced baseline characteristics were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The early treatment failure rate was lower in the TXA group (6.7%) than in the standard group (30%) (P = .042). The freedom from treatment failure periods for 4 and 28 days was significantly longer in the TXA group than in the standard group (P = .023). No adverse events from TXA were recorded.
The precise delivery of topical TXA alongside standard endoscopic hemostasis reduced the early treatment failure rate in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05248321.).

There is no consensus on whether a gastroscopic biopsy is necessary during the emergency treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases such as gastric ulcer bleeding. In this study, we examined the clinical utility and safety of an emergency gastroscopic biopsy for the assessment of gastric ulcer bleeding.
We enrolled 150 patients with a single bleeding gastric ulcer after emergency gastroscopy (EG) from April 2020 to April 2022. The patients were randomly divided into the biopsy and no biopsy groups, and they were followed-up until June 2022 to examine whether recurrent gastric ulcer bleeding had occurred.
Re-bleeding occurred in 15 out of 150 (10%) patients. We diagnosed malignancies in 17 (11.3%) patients and validated 14 (9.3%) of them during the initial gastroscopy procedure. Factors that could predict the occurrence of gastric ulcer re-bleeding with biopsy during EG included an absence of ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR] = 0.395, confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.65, p ≤ .005), renal disease (OR = 1.74, CI: 0.77-1.59, p ≤ .005), and using warfarin or oral anticoagulants (OR = 11.953, CI: 3.494-39.460, p ≤ .005). No significant differences were observed in 60-day bleeding (p = .077) and the duration of hospitalization (p = .700) between the two groups.
Patients undergoing biopsy during EG did not exhibit an increased risk of re-bleeding compared with those who did not undergo a biopsy. An early biopsy facilitates an early pathologic diagnosis, early clinical intervention, safe discharge of low-risk patients, and improved outcomes in high-risk patients.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to identify clinical endoscopic indicators related to peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation and to analyze whether the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for gastric ulcer rebleeding.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a retrospective study that included patients with gastric ulcer bleeding who were hospitalized at three medical centers in China from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. Ulcer rebleeding that occurred within 30 days of successful initial hemostasis was analyzed to determine whether this event was related to the degree of peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance or other mucosal inflammation-related factors.
UNASSIGNED: We enrolled 1111 patients and determined that GBS-Rebleeding-ROC (P<0.001), age (P=0.01), use of NSAIDs (P=0.001), bile reflux (P<0.001), and Helicobacter pylori (P<0.001) are all risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance. Through multivariate analysis, we determined that severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance (P=0.002) was an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding within 30 days. Finally, we developed a risk assessment model using factors associated with mucosal inflammation that may be useful for early prediction of rebleeding.
UNASSIGNED: The risk factors for peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance were identified. Severe peri-ulcerative mucosal inflammation appearance is an independent risk factor for ulcer rebleeding.

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

Background: Guidelines recommend using prognostic scales for risk stratification in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It remains unclear whether risk scores offer greater accuracy than clinical evaluation. Objective: Compare the diagnostic accuracy of the endoscopist\'s judgment against different risk-scoring systems (Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, Baylor and the Cedars-Sinai scores) for predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Methods: Between February 2006 and April 2010 we prospectively recruited 401 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding; 225 received endoscopic treatment. The endoscopist recorded his/her subjective assessment (\"endoscopist judgment\") of the risk of rebleeding and death immediately after endoscopy for each patient. Independent evaluators calculated the different scores. Area under the receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for rebleeding and mortality. Results: The areas under ROC curve of the endoscopist\'s clinical judgment for rebleeding (0.67-0.75) and mortality (0.84-0.9) were similar or even superior to the different risk scores in both the whole group and in patients receiving endoscopic therapy. Conclusions: The accuracy of the currently available risk scores for predicting rebleeding and mortality in PUB patients was moderate and not superior to the endoscopist\'s judgment. More precise prognostic scales are needed.

In the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, recurrent bleeding is associated with high mortality. We investigated if added angiographic embolisation after endoscopic haemostasis to high-risk ulcers could reduce recurrent bleeding.
After endoscopic haemostasis to their bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, we randomised patients with at least one of these criteria (ulcers≥20 mm in size, spurting bleeding, hypotensive shock or haemoglobin<9 g/dL) to receive added angiographic embolisation or standard treatment. Our primary endpoint was recurrent bleeding within 30 days.
Between January 2010 and July 2014, 241 patients were randomised (added angiographic embolisation n=118, standard treatment n=123); 22 of 118 patients (18.6%) randomised to angiography did not receive embolisation. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 12 (10.2%) in the embolisation and 14 (11.4%) in the standard treatment group reached the primary endpoint (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.46; p=0.745). The rate of reinterventions (13 vs 17; p=0.510) and deaths (3 vs 5, p=0.519) were similar. In a per-protocol analysis, 6 of 96 (6.2%) rebled after embolisation compared with 14 of 123 (11.4%) in the standard treatment group (HR 1.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.92; p=0.192). None of 96 patients died after embolisation compared with 5 (4.1%) deaths in the standard treatment group (p=0.108). In a posthoc analysis, embolisation reduced recurrent bleeding only in patients with ulcers≥15 mm in size (2 (4.5%) vs 12 (23.1%); p=0.027).
After endoscopic haemostasis, added embolisation does not reduce recurrent bleeding.
NCT01142180.

BACKGROUND: Triage systems are used in emergency medical services to systematically prioritize prehospital resources according to individual patient conditions. Previous studies have shown cases of preventable deaths in emergency medical services even when triage systems are used, indicating a potential undertriage among some conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the triage level among patients diagnosed with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) or peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).
METHODS: In a three-year period in Central Denmark Region, all patients hospitalized within 24 h after a 1-1-2 emergency call and who subsequently received either a PPU or a PUB (hereinafter combined and referred to as PPU/PUB) or a First Hour Quintet (FHQ: respiratory failure, stroke, trauma, cardiac chest pain, and cardiac arrest) diagnosis were investigated. A modified Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk of receiving the highest and lowest prehospital response level. Also, a linear regression analysis was used to estimate the relative risk of 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: Of 8658 evaluated patients, 263 were diagnosed with PPU/PUB. After adjusting for relevant confounding variables, patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB were less likely to receive ambulance transportation compared to patients diagnosed with stroke, RR = 1.41 (CI: 1.28-1.56); trauma, RR = 1.28 (CI: 1.15-1.42); cardiac chest pain, RR = 1.47 (CI: 1.33-1.62); and cardiac arrest, RR = 1.44 (CI: 1.31-1.42). Among patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB, 6.5% (CI: 3.3-9.7) did not receive ambulance transportation. The proportion of patients not receiving ambulance transportation was higher among patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB compared to patients diagnosed with an FHQ diagnosis. The 30-day mortality rate among patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB was 7.8% (CI: 4.2-11.1). This was lower than the 30-day mortality rate among patients diagnosed with respiratory failure (P = 0.010), stroke (P = 0.001), and cardiac arrest (P < 0.001), but comparable to the 30-day mortality among patients diagnosed with cardiac chest pain (P = 0.080) and trauma (P = 0.281).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients calling 1-1-2, fewer patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB received ambulance transportation than patients diagnosed with FHQ diagnoses, despite a high mortality among patients diagnosed with PPU/PUB.

OBJECTIVE: Mortality rates in complicated peptic ulcer disease are high. This study aimed to examine the prognostic importance of ulcer site in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) and perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).
METHODS:
METHODS: a nationwide cohort study with prospective and consecutive data collection.
METHODS: all patients treated for PUB and PPU at Danish hospitals between 2003 and 2014.
METHODS: demographic and clinical data reported to the Danish Clinical Registry of Emergency Surgery.
METHODS: 90- and 30-d mortality and re-intervention.
METHODS: the crude and adjusted association between ulcer site (gastric and duodenal) and the outcome measures of interest were assessed by binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Some 20,059 patients with PUB and 4273 patients with PPU were included; 90-d mortality was 15.3% for PUB and 29.8% for PPU; 30-d mortality was 10.2% and 24.7%, respectively. Duodenal bleeding ulcer, as compared to gastric ulcer (GU), was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality within 90 and 30 d, and with re-intervention: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.47 (95% confidence interval 1.30-1.67); p < 0.001, OR 1.60 (1.43-1.77); p < 0.001, and OR 1.86 (1.68-2.06); p < 0.001, respectively. There was no difference in outcomes between gastric and duodenal ulcers (DUs) in PPU patients: adjusted OR 0.99 (0.84-1.16); p = 0.698, OR 0.93 (0.78 to 1.10); p = 0.409, and OR 0.97 (0.80-1.19); p = 0.799, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: DU site is a significant predictor of death and re-intervention in patients with PUB, as compared to GU site. This does not seem to be the case for patients with PPU.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, no standard approach exists to the level of monitoring or presence of staff with anaesthetic expertise required during emergency esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We assess the association between anaesthesia care and mortality. We further describe the prevalence and inter-hospital variation of anaesthesia care in Denmark and identify clinical predictors for choosing anaesthesia care.
METHODS: This population-based cohort study included all emergency EGDs for PUB in adults during 2012-2013. About 90-day all-cause mortality after EGD was estimated by crude and adjusted logistic regression. Clinical predictors of anaesthesia care were identified in another logistic regression model.
RESULTS: Some 3.056 EGDs performed at 21 hospitals were included; 2074 (68%) received anaesthesia care and 982 (32%) were managed under supervison of the endoscopist. Some 16.7% of the patients undergoing EGD with anaesthesia care died within 90 days after the procedure, compared to 9.8% of the patients who had no anaesthesia care, adjusted OR = 1.51 (95% CI = 1.25-1.83). Comparing the two hospitals with the most frequent (98.6% of al EGDs) and least frequent (6.9%) use of anaesthesia care, mortality was 13.7% and 11.7%, respectively, adjusted OR = 1.22 (95% CI = 0.55-2.71). The prevalence of anaesthesia care varied between the hospitals, median = 78.9% (range 6.9-98.6%). Predictors of choosing anaesthesia care were shock at admission, high ASA score, and no pre-existing comorbidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of anaesthesia care for emergency EGD was associated with increased mortality, most likely because of confounding by indication. The use of anaesthesia care varied greatly between hospitals, but was unrelated to mortality at hospital level.