THE PEPTIC ULCER BLEEDING. REBLEEDING PREDICTION AND THE CHOICE OF TREATMENT TACTICS
https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2020.2.12-18
Abstract
Abstract: Aims. To develop methods for predicting the rebleeding of peptic ulcer, to develop an algorithm for choosing therapeutic tactics based on predicting rebleeding.
Methods. 2 retrospective case-control studies were conducted. The first study included 240 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, which were divided into 2 groups: group 1 - 52 patients with rebleeding; group 2 - 188 patients without rebleeding. The second study included 108 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding who underwent endoscopic hemostasis. Patients are divided into 3 groups depending on the location of the ulcer and the difficulty of performing endoscopic hemostasis
Results. According to the results of the first study, it was possible to identify the following clinical, laboratory and endoscopic criteria associated with the onset of rebleeding - shock index, localization of ulcers by lesser curvature of the stomach and the posterior wall of the duodenum, endotypes 2A, 2C and 3 according to Forrest, the level of red blood cells, urea and general blood protein. The developed scale demonstrates a better prognosis of rebleeding than the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Rockall score (AUROC for the new scale is 0.88 with 95% CI: 0.836-0.924, for mGBS - 0.764 with 95% CI: 0.692-0.837, for RS - 0.759 with 95% CI: 0.688-0.830). The second study found that “difficult” localization of an ulcer (subcardial stomach, duodenal bulb) increases the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis (OR = 25.4, 95% CI = 2.6 - 244.3).
Conclusion. Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an urgent problem today. One of the reasons for unsatisfactory treatment results is a rebleeding. Stratification of the risk of rebleeding should be an important component in the complex of diagnosis and treatment of such patients, influencing the choice of therapeutic tactics.
About the Authors
Sh. V. Timerbulatov
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ph.D. Professor
The Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, Lenina, 3. tel: 8-(347)-2555457
M. V. Valeev
Bashkir State Medical University;
Central District Hospital of Beloretsk
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Endoscopist; Graduate student
The Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, Lenina, 3. tel: 8-(347)-2555457
The Republic of Bashkortostan, Beloretsk, M. Gafuri 142а, tel: 8-(34792)-26793
References
1. Lau J.Y., Sung J., Hill C. et al. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion, 2011, № 84, pp. 102–113.
2. Hearnshaw S.A., Lowe D., Logan R.F.A. et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: Patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut, 2011, № 60, pp. 1327–1335
3. Laine L., Jensen D.M. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am. J. Gastroenterol., 2012, № 107, pp. 345–360.
4. Ljubicic N., Puljiz Z., Budimir I. et al. The influence of etiologic factors on clinical outcome in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Dig. Dis. Sci., 2012, № 57(12), pp. 3195-3204.
5. [Khunafin SN, Fedorov SV, Petrov YuV, et al. Gastroduodenal ulcerous hemorrhages. Permskii meditsinskii zhurnal, 2014, Vol.31, No 5. pp. 17-21. (In Russ).
6. Jimenez Rosales R., Martinez-Cara J.G., Vadillo-Calles F. et al. Analysis of rebleeding in cases of an upper gastrointestinal bleed in a single center series. Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 2018, № 111(3), pp. 189-192.
7. Lip H.T., Heah H.T., Huei T.J. et al. Rockall risk score in predicting 30 days non-variceal upper gastrointestinal rebleeding in a Malaysian population. Med J Malaysia, 2016, № 71(5), pp. 225-230.
8. Garcia-Iglesias P., Villoria A., Suarez D. et al. Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2011, № 34(8), pp. 888-900.
9. Korovin A.J., Maskin S.S., Turkin D.V. et al. Gastroduodenal ulcerative bleeding: evaluating the choice of hemostatic methods and predicting the risk of recurrent bleeding. Vestnik khirurgicheskoi gastroehnterologii, 2017, № 1, pp. 41-45. (In Russ).
10. Lavreshin PM, Brusnev LA, Gorbunkov VYa, et al. Experience in the treatment of gastroduodenal bleeding ulcer etiology in a city hospital. Vestnik Natsional’nogo mediko-khirurgicheskogo Tsentra im N.I. Pirogova, 2019, № 2, pp. 42-44. (In Russ).
11. Blatchford O., Murray W.R., Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet, 2000, № 356(9238), pp. 1318-1321.
12. Cheng D.W., Lu Y.W., Teller T. et al. A modified Glasgow Blatchford Score improves risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleed: a prospective comparison of scoring systems. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2012, № 36, pp. 782-789.
13. Rockall T.A., Logan R.F., Devlin H.B. et al. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut, 1996, № 38(3), pp. 316–321.
Review
For citations:
Timerbulatov Sh.V., Valeev M.V. THE PEPTIC ULCER BLEEDING. REBLEEDING PREDICTION AND THE CHOICE OF TREATMENT TACTICS. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2020;(2):12-18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2020.2.12-18
Views:
501
Email this article 