Faisal Kamal1, Muhammad Ali Khan2, Wade Lee-Smith3, Sachit Sharma4, Zaid Imam5, Collin Henry6, Dawit Jowhar6, Zubair Khan7, Ellen Petryna6, Umair Iqbal8, Claudio Tombazzi1, Mohammad K Ismail1, Colin W Howden1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Mulford Health Sciences Library, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Division of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.