Jeong-Seon Ji1, Hyung-Keun Kim2, Sung Soo Kim2, Hiun-Suk Chae2, Hyunjung Cho3, Young-Seok Cho4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Incheon, 21431, Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 271 Cheonbo-ro, Uijeongbu, 11765, Korea. 3. MOT Cluster, Korea University of Technology and Education, 1600 Chungjeol-ro, Cheonan, 31253, Korea. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seoul, 06591, Korea. yscho@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate type of endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding due to duodenal Dieulafoy's lesions (DLs) is not yet established. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for duodenal DLs and long-term outcome after successful hemostasis, as well as to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoscopic hemoclip placement (EHP). METHODS: Patients admitted to the emergency unit with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding from duodenal DLs were enrolled in this study. The data were collected prospectively, but data analysis was performed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients with duodenal DLs were treated with EBL (n = 11) or EHP (n = 13). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to clinical or endoscopic characteristics, apart from the number of epinephrine (three cases with EBL vs. 11 cases with EHP; p = 0.011). Primary hemostasis was achieved in all patients. Recurrent bleeding was observed in one patient (9.1 %) from the EBL group and in five patients (38.5 %) from the EHP group (p = 0.166). The recurrent bleeding in the patient from the EBL group was treated by EHP. In the EHP group, all five patients achieved successful secondary hemostasis by endoscopic treatment (EBL in two patients and EHP in three patients). There were no differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including the number of endoscopic sessions required, need for angiographic embolization or emergent surgery, transfusion requirements, or length of hospital stay. No complications occurred, and there was no recurrence of bleeding in either group during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endoscopic treatments are effective and safe for the treatment of bleeding duodenal DLs. A large-scale, randomized, controlled study is required to confirm the efficacy and safety of EBL and EHP for the management of bleeding duodenal DLs.
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate type of endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding due to duodenal Dieulafoy's lesions (DLs) is not yet established. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for duodenal DLs and long-term outcome after successful hemostasis, as well as to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoscopic hemoclip placement (EHP). METHODS:Patients admitted to the emergency unit with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding from duodenal DLs were enrolled in this study. The data were collected prospectively, but data analysis was performed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients with duodenal DLs were treated with EBL (n = 11) or EHP (n = 13). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to clinical or endoscopic characteristics, apart from the number of epinephrine (three cases with EBL vs. 11 cases with EHP; p = 0.011). Primary hemostasis was achieved in all patients. Recurrent bleeding was observed in one patient (9.1 %) from the EBL group and in five patients (38.5 %) from the EHP group (p = 0.166). The recurrent bleeding in the patient from the EBL group was treated by EHP. In the EHP group, all five patients achieved successful secondary hemostasis by endoscopic treatment (EBL in two patients and EHP in three patients). There were no differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including the number of endoscopic sessions required, need for angiographic embolization or emergent surgery, transfusion requirements, or length of hospital stay. No complications occurred, and there was no recurrence of bleeding in either group during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endoscopic treatments are effective and safe for the treatment of bleeding duodenal DLs. A large-scale, randomized, controlled study is required to confirm the efficacy and safety of EBL and EHP for the management of bleeding duodenal DLs.
Authors: Sung Bum Cho; Wan Sik Lee; Young Eun Joo; Hyeng Rok Kim; Sang Wook Park; Chang Hwan Park; Hyeun Soo Kim; Sung Kyu Choi; Jong Sun Rew Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Halil Alis; Osman Z Oner; Mustafa U Kalayci; Kemal Dolay; Selin Kapan; Aliye Soylu; Ersan Aygun Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 4.584
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