Dataset Information

Over-the-scope clip versus transcatheter arterial embolization for refractory peptic ulcer bleeding-A propensity score matched analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) or surgery are standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-the-scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment.

Objective

To compare OTSC treatment to TAE in refractory peptic ulcer bleeding.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 128 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or TAE (n = 62) for refractory PUB between 2009 and 2019 in four academic centers were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (hemostasis + no rebleeding within 7 days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU stay, and mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics.

Results

Patients characteristics were similar in both groups but ulcers in the TAE group were larger, more often located in the duodenal bulb (85.5% vs. 65.2%; p = 0.014), and that the proportion of Forrest Ia bleedings was higher (38.7% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.018). Clinical success was comparable in both groups (74.2% vs. 59.7%; p = 0.092). Stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly longer in the TAE group (mean 8.0 vs. 4.7 days; p = 0.002). Serious adverse events after re-therapy (12.9% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.042) and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in the TAE group (9.1 vs. 22.6%, OR 2.92 [95% CI 1.04-8.16]; p = 0.05). After propensity score matching, the differences found regarding ICU stay (4.9± 5.9 and 9.2 ± 11.2; p = 0.009) and in-hospital mortality (5% vs. 22.5%; OR 5.52 [95% CI: 1.11-27.43]; p = 0.048) stayed significant.

Conclusions

OTSC treatment for refractory PUB was superior to TAE in terms of ICU stay and in-hospital mortality.

SUBMITTER: Kuellmer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8598957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgery or transcatheter arterial embolization or are both considered as standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-The-Scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment but a comparison with surgery has not been performed, yet.Patients and methodsIn this retrospective, multicenter study, 103 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or surgery (n = 37) for refractory PUB in four tertiary care centers between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (successful hemostasis and no rebleeding within seven days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU-stay and in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression models were performed to define predictive factors for allocation to surgical therapy and for mortality.ResultsAge, comorbidities, anticoagulation therapy, number of pretreatments, ulcer location, and Rockall-Score were similar in both groups. In the surgical group, there were significantly more patients in shock at rebleeding (78.1% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.002), larger ulcers (18.6 ± 7.4 mm vs. 23.0 ± 9.4 mm; p = 0.017) and more FIa bleedings (64.9% vs. 19.7%; p < 0.001) were detected. Clinical success was comparable (74.2% vs. 83.8%; p = 0.329). In the surgical group, length of ICU-stay (16.2 ± 18.0 days vs. 4.7 ± 6.6 days; p < 0.001), severe adverse events (70.3% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (35.1% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.003) were significantly higher. Multivariable analysis defined shock at rebleeding as the main predictor for allocation to surgical therapy (OR 4.063, 95%CI {1.496-11.033}, p = 0.006). Postsurgical adverse events were the main reason for the in-hospital mortality (OR 5.167, 95% CI {1.311-20.363}, p = 0.019).ConclusionIn this retrospective study, OTSC compared to surgical treatment showed comparable clinical success but was associated with shorter ICU-stay, less severe adverse events and lower in-hospital mortality.

Project description:Background:A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far. Objective:The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips. Methods:For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07?€ in the standard group vs 12,808.56?€ in the over-the-scope clip group (p?=?0.812) and 2084.98?€ vs 1984.71?€ respectively (p?=?0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05?€ vs 15,104.43?€ and 4917.41?€ vs 2340.46?€ for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18?€ for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment. Conclusions:Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Project description:Background:Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30?years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment. Methods:The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached. Conclusions:The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.