C Havanond1, P Havanond. 1. Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Thammasat Hospital, Pahon Yothin Rd., Klong Luang, Prathumtani, Thailand, 12120. chittinad@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment is recommended for initial hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Many endoscopic hemostatic devices are used. Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) is an alternative. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews all available literature to access the efficacy of APC compared to other endoscopic therapies in the control of acute non-variceal upper GI hemorrhage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4 2003), MEDLINE 1966 to December 2003, EMBASE 1980 to December 2003, Web of Science for SCISEARCH (1980 to December 2003), BIOSIS (1985 to December 2003), and the National Research Register Issue 4 2003. We also handsearched abstracts from conference proceedings of the United European Gastroenterology Week and Digestive Disease Week. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled trials of APC compared with other endoscopic hemostasis interventions in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving 121 people were included. There was no common intervention to pool. One trial compared APC to heat probe, another trial compared APC to injection sclerotherapy. There was no significant difference between groups in either of these trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the two randomised controlled trials identified in this review, there is no evidence to suggest that APC is superior to other endoscopic therapies. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment is recommended for initial hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Many endoscopic hemostatic devices are used. Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) is an alternative. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews all available literature to access the efficacy of APC compared to other endoscopic therapies in the control of acute non-variceal upper GI hemorrhage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4 2003), MEDLINE 1966 to December 2003, EMBASE 1980 to December 2003, Web of Science for SCISEARCH (1980 to December 2003), BIOSIS (1985 to December 2003), and the National Research Register Issue 4 2003. We also handsearched abstracts from conference proceedings of the United European Gastroenterology Week and Digestive Disease Week. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled trials of APC compared with other endoscopic hemostasis interventions in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving 121 people were included. There was no common intervention to pool. One trial compared APC to heat probe, another trial compared APC to injection sclerotherapy. There was no significant difference between groups in either of these trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the two randomised controlled trials identified in this review, there is no evidence to suggest that APC is superior to other endoscopic therapies. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.
Authors: Mansour A Parsi; Allison R Schulman; Harry R Aslanian; Manoop S Bhutani; Kuman Krishnan; David R Lichtenstein; Joshua Melson; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Rahul Pannala; Amrita Sethi; Guru Trikudanathan; Arvind J Trindade; Rabindra R Watson; John T Maple Journal: VideoGIE Date: 2019-06-27