View clinical trials related to Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.
Filter by:Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become an important tool in clinical practice since its introduction in 2000. This non-invasive method allows the visualization of small bowel mucosa, being essential in the management of many conditions, such as suspected small bowel bleeding, inflammatory bowel diseases and intestinal polyposis syndromes. Despite recommendations concerning SBCE in different pathologies, there are still some technical concerns to be addressed. The optimal preparation for SBCE has been one of these controversial issues. Currently, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends that patients ingest a purgative agent (2L of polyethylene glycol, PEG) and antifoaming agents for SBCE, because it was associated with a better visualization. However, it remains unclear which is the optimal timing for purgative use. Furthermore, the use of a booster agent after capsule ingestion is already performed in colon capsule endoscopy, but less is known about its application in SBCE. Also, it remains to be clarified whether a better visualization results in higher diagnostic yield and impacts patients' outcomes. Therefore, the global aim of this prospective, randomized, multi-centric study is to determine the optimal timing and preparation for small-bowel capsule endoscopy (regardless of the equipment used), comparing four groups of different preparation protocols: - Protocol 1) 1L of Moviprep® solution the night before the procedure - Protocol 2) 1L of Moviprep® solution up to 2h before the procedure - Protocol 3) 0.5L of Moviprep® solution up to 2h before the procedure plus 0.5L of Moviprep® solution after the capsule had reached the duodenum (assessed with real-time viewer) - Protocol 4) 1L of Moviprep® solution after the capsule had reached the duodenum (assessed using real-time viewer)
The objective of this study is to determine whether early video capsule endoscopy (VCE) immediately after a negative gastroscopy in the setting of suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) improves patient outcomes as compared to the standard approach which typically involves performing colonoscopy prior to small bowel investigations. We aim to examine the differences in diagnostic yield, total number of procedures, length of hospitalization, mortality rates, and healthcare cost between the two groups.
Background: Potent antithrombotic therapy has improved prognosis for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) significantly, however, at a price of increased bleeding risk. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection commonly causes upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). If systematic screening for H. pylori and subsequent eradication therapy significantly reduces the risk of UGIB and improves outcomes is unknown. Study design: A cluster randomized, cross-over, registry-based clinical trial using nationwide Swedish registries for patient enrollment and data collection. Population: Patients hospitalized for MI at up to 40 hospitals across Sweden. Regional PCI networks comprise 18 clusters. Clusters will be randomized to H. pylori screening or no screening for 1 year after which cross-over to the opposite strategy for 1 year is followed by 1-year follow-up. Intervention: All MI patients will be routinely screened for H. pylori. Patients diagnosed with active H. pylori infection will receive eradication therapy. All follow-up by data collection from national registries. Controls: Standard clinical practice. Data will be collected from national registries. Outcome: Primary outcome is the incidence of hospitalization for UGIB. Secondary outcomes include mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular), cardiovascular endpoints (rehospitalization for MI, heart failure or stroke), or UGIB requiring blood transfusion.
This study is conducted to evaluate the effectivity of hypertonic dextrose spray as an endoscopic topical hemostatic agent, compared to conventional agent (adrenaline injection, followed by hemoclip or thermocoagulation), in patients with acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding.
In the management of patients with acute upper non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, further bleeding is the most important adverse factor predictive of mortality. In the United Kingdom Audit on acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, clinical evidence of further bleeding was reported in 13% of patients following the first endoscopy and 27% of them died. The use of OTSC has emerged as an alternative before angiographic embolization(TAE) which is often considered most definitive. We propose to define the algorithm in the management of patients with refractory bleeding from their peptic ulcers or other non variceal causes. We hypothesize that endoscopic use of OTSC compares favourably with TAE and both lead to similar outcomes. An equivalence of the two modalities may mean that endoscopic application of OTSC should be attempted before TAE as often we need to document further bleeds with endoscopy and a second treatment should be instituted at the same time.
Upper Gastrointestinal bleed is a common presentation in a medical emergency. Patients generally present with hematemesis, melena or in severe cases hematochezia. Incidence and etiology vary from region as well as the level of health care facility. In the US, UGI bleed accountsfor about 300000 admissions per year (6). India has a huge burden of UGI bleed. A study in India showed 4.6% of hospitaladmissions were due to UGI bleed (7). As per the medical record of PGIMER, 2-3 patients of UGIbleed are admitted to the EMOPD every day. Upper GI bleed is anatomically defined as any gastrointestinal bleed originating proximal to ligamentof treitz (8). Causes of UGI bleed are generally divided into variceal and non-variceal in origin. The common etiology of non-variceal bleed are Peptic Ulcer disease (PUD), esophagitis, erosive Gastritis, vascular malformations, Mallory Weiss tear and GI malignancies.Variceal hemorrhage is usually secondary to esophageal varices, but alsocan be due to gastric varices and ectopic varices of the upper GI tract(9).Non-varicealcauses are more common as compared to variceal bleed (10) and among this PUD is the most common (10).But there is recent rising trend of variceal bleed secondary to chronic liver disease and portal hypertension .As per a recently published institutional study, variceal bleed constituted 45.7% of UGI bleed (11). Morbidity and mortality associated with UGI bleed are significantly high.Variceal bleed is becoming a major concern in tertiarycare centers and carries a higher mortality as compared to non variceal bleed(12 ).Clinical severity of UGI bleed may vary from being insignificant to fatal. Mortality from UGI bleed may vary from 2 to 5% where as it around 10-30% in cases of re-bleed (12). Prompt UGI endoscopic procedure is diagnostic as well as therapeutic which should be done ideally within first 24hrsalong with airway, volume and blood resuscitative measures (13).High dose proton pump inhibitors(PPI) are used for non-variceal bleed where as splanchnic vasoconstrictorsare used in variceal bleed along with endoscopic procedure like injection of Epinephrine, Sclerosants, application of haemostatic material like hemoclips/endoclips, over the scope clips, glue or tissue adhesive, haemostatic powder/spray. Beside these endoscopic bipolar electro coagulation, heater probe coagulation, argon plasma coagulator, laser photocoagulation can also be done as and when required. For variceal bleed endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) is the main stay of therapy. However routine use of antifibrinolytic agent hasn't been recommended in the guidelines for management of acute UGI bleed. Studies have shown that fibrinolysis may play an important role in GI bleeding dueto premature breakdown of fibrin blood clots at the bleeding site (14). Studies have also shown that many patients with acute UGI bleed have elevated levels of fibrin degradation products (a surrogate marker for fibrinolysis) and that is associated with worse outcomes (14). Fibrinolysisalso contributes to the risk of re-bleed.Literature review suggests that early administration ofTranexamic acid (TXA) reduces mortality due to bleeding in trauma patients (15) and effective in controlling bleeding in menorrhagia (16). Our own institutional study showed that TXA is effective as a bridging therapy in controlling bleeding from haemoptysis before definitive therapeutic intervention done (1). A systematic COCHRANE review of TXA in UGI bleed identified 7 trials (3). These trials showed statistically significant reduction in mortality and reduced need ofsurgical interventions in patients receiving TXA. However the trials had many fallacieslike small sample size, number of biases. The NICE guideline doesn't include TXA inthe management of GI bleed (4). So far studies on use of TXA in UGI bleed haven't been able to either recommend or refute the use of TXA in UGI bleed (3). There is also lack of study form India and the Southeast Asia regarding the efficacy of TXA in UGI bleed. TXA, an anti-fibrinolytic agent, inhibits fibrinolysis by displacing plasminogen from fibrin. So, TXA may have role in bleeding control and preventing re-bleed in acute UGI bleed by stabilization of the clot formation. This study will evaluate the efficacy of early administration of TXA in acute onset UGIbleed, in term of bleeding control, preventing re-bleeding and mortality.
Acute variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage remains a hot potato in cirrhotic patients. The purpose of this study is to figure out whether urgent endoscopy (within 6h after gastroenterological consultation) is superior to non-urgent endoscopy (between 6h and 24h after gastroenterological consultation) in reducing re-bleeding for these patients. This is a single-centered, prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. 400 patients with suspected variceal bleeding will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive endoscopic intervention either within 6h or 6-24h. Randomization is conducted by permuted block randomization stratified by age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and pulse rate. The primary efficacy endpoint is rebleeding within 42 days after control of acute variceal bleeding. This trial will provide valuable insights into the efficacy between the urgent endoscopy group and the non-urgent endoscopy group.
Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is potentially lethal in liver cirrhosis. Accurate assessment of prognosis is critical in a timely fashion. A novel model, CAGIB score, has been developed based on our Chinese multicenter retrospective study. Now, a prospective, international multicenter, observational study will be performed to further compare the performance of CAGIB versus Child-Pugh and MELD scores for evaluating the in-hospital mortality of patients with liver cirrhosis and acute gastrointestinal bleeding.
Diagnostic modalities for the evaluation of small bowel pathology include video capsule endoscopy (VCE), antegrade and retrograde device-assisted enteroscopy, CT and MR enterography (1). Despite VCE being the first-line evaluation modality, it lacks interventional capability. Deep enteroscopy (DE) allows tissue sampling and other therapeutic interventions with real-time endoscopic assessment. DE is usually performed with specific endoscopes (balloon-assisted device or spiral overtube) making it time consuming and there is limited availability since special instruments and accessories are required.(1,2) The through-the-scope (TTS) balloon system consists of a balloon catheter designed for anchoring in the small bowel, inserted through the instrument channel of a standard colonoscope.(3) The catheter is advanced, the balloon is inflated and anchored in the small intestine and the endoscope slides over the guiding catheter to the inflated balloon. The most common indications for DE are obscure GI bleeding, iron deficiency anemia, abnormal capsule endoscopy and chronic diarrhea. As compared to spiral, single-or double-balloon enteroscopy, TTS (NaviAid, SMART Medical Systems Ltd, Ra'anana, Israel) is a simpler technique, which requires less investment in infrastructure. The balloon catheter is advanced blindly in front of a standard adult colonoscope as it bends around the curves of the small bowel. To prevent perforation/trauma the catheter is fitted with a soft silicone tip which easily bends under pressure. Insertion depth can be calculated during the withdrawal of the enteroscope. The Aim of the study: To compare the depth of maximal ileal insertion between through-the-scope balloon enteroscopy (NaviAid) with enteroscopy using the adult colonoscope (Olympus CF-190) alone, in the same patient, in a prospective cohort at University Medical Center of El Paso, Texas.
With the development of endoscopy, patients with suspected gastrointestinal tract disease can be evaluated with further management. Upper esophageal tract including esophagus, stomach and duodenum, and colon are easily to be evaluated in daily practice. However, small bowel, located between stomach and colon, is a long tortuous organ about 4-6 meter long and causing difficulty in optical evaluation. Since Prof. Swain and Iddan invented video capsule endoscopy(VCE) from over 20 years ago.[1] VCE is increasingly used in evaluation of small bowel disease across the world.[2, 3] Originally, VCE is composed of one front lens, with flashlight and battery to take images during its passage throughout small bowel. Wireless device were also implanted for transmission of the video signal for further diagnosis.[4] In recent decades, new generation of VCE have better image quality, longer battery life and more frequent images taken. Therefore, VCE is recommended as the first line treatment in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding(OGIB) by multiple societies.[5-7] The efficacy of capsule endoscopy in evaluating patients with OGIB is good, but not perfect. The current diagnostic yield of VCE in patients with OGIB is from 35% to 77%.[8-11] Part of OGIB patients still can't be diagnosed using current conventional capsule endoscopy. The current forward looking lens may cause some difficulties, including inability to visualize the duodenal papilla, blind points missed by capsule endoscopy. In recent years, another type of panoramic side view capsule endoscopy was developed.[12] The CapsoCam Plus (Capsovision) capsule has four cameras allowing the exploration of the small bowel through 360° lateral viewing and makes papilla stably visualized. However, this system does not include a recording system so the capsule endoscope has to be collected by the patient after defecation in order for the film to be downloaded which may be a disadvantage compared with the conventional capsule endoscopy. In previous studies, the diagnostic yield of conventional capsule endoscope and panoramic side view capsule endoscope were comparable while visualization of duodenal papilla is more frequent in using panoramic side view capsule endoscopy. [13-15] However, most studies are done in single arm historical control or randomized controlled study, which may be influenced by the uneven distribution of OGIB patients in both groups. To date only one simultaneous capsule endoscopy study using both capsule endoscope in the same patient is available to data using older version of conventional capsule endoscope and panoramic side view capsule endoscope .[16] The efficiency between two capsule endoscopies were comparable in terms of diagnostic yield and image quality. Therefore, we aimed to conduct this study to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency between two capsule endoscopies. The aim of this study was to evaluate (1) visualization of duodenal papilla (2) diagnostic concordance (kappa value) of the conventional capsule endoscopy (Olmypus endocapsule 10) and panoramic side view (CapsoCam Plus) capsule endoscopy in the same OGIB patient. The clinical experience and satisfaction of both capsule endoscope by the patient and the physicians will be also be assessed.