Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common and potentially life-threatening condition. Over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) have emerged as a promising endoscopic treatment option for NVUGIB. We aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of OTSCs compared to standard endoscopic treatments (ST) in patients with NVUGIB.

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OTSCs with ST for NVUGIB. The primary outcomes were initial hemostasis and persistent bleeding. Secondary outcomes included rebleeding rates, mortality, hospital stays and others. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random/fixed-effects models.

Six RCTs involving 621 patients were included in the meta-analysis. OTSCs demonstrated significantly higher initial hemostasis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.78-12.96; P = 0.002) and lower persistent bleeding rates (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.56; P = 0.003) compared to ST group. The rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the OTSC group 7-days re-bleeding (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14-0.53; P = 0.001); 30-days rebleeding (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.22, 0.70; P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31-1.33; P = 0.38) and hospital stay (mean difference 0.79 days 95%CI -0.57, 2.15) between the two groups.

OTSCs are more effective than ST for achieving hemostasis and preventing rebleeding in patients with NVUGIB, without increasing mortality. Key message What is Already Known  Previous studies have shown that nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a serious medical condition that needs effective endoscopic interventions. The success rates of standard treatments for achieving hemostasis and preventing rebleeding are not consistent. What This Study Adds  According to this study, over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) have the same mortality rate as standard endoscopic treatments, but they significantly improve initial hemostasis and lower rebleeding rates. Impact on Research, Practice, or Policy  The findings support the use of OTSCs as a preferred intervention for NVUGIB, which could affect clinical guidelines and encourage additional research focused on improving endoscopic techniques and patient outcomes in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND The Over-the-Scope-Clip (OTSC) System is a class of endoscopic clips intended to provide improved strength and tissue capture compared to conventional through-the-scope clips. These clips are generally safe and effective in managing many gastrointestinal conditions, with a low overall adverse event rate. Although the OTSC has been used to treat gastrointestinal bleeding and bowel perforations for many years, it often is relegated to second-line therapy and has only recently become a first-line hemostatic therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding. CASE REPORT Here, we present a unique adverse event of the OTSC causing iatrogenic ligation of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA). A 71-year-old man presented with 6 months of epigastric abdominal pain and 2 weeks of hematemesis, and was ultimately diagnosed with a bleeding duodenal ulcer. He underwent multiple endoscopic interventions to attempt to control the duodenal ulcer bleeding, including placement of the OTSC on a visible vessel. Soon after OTSC placement, he became hypotensive with recurrent hematochezia, and Interventional Radiology was consulted for endovascular management of the bleeding. Angiography showed the OTSC had been deployed across the midportion of the GDA from the duodenal lumen, effectively ligating the GDA, causing bleeding due to direct vascular injury. This bleeding was ultimately controlled with coil embolization. However, this iatrogenic ligation of the midportion of the GDA by the OTSC significantly complicated endovascular intervention to control the bleeding. CONCLUSIONS As the OTSC device becomes more commonly used in the endoscopy suite, it is important to share potential pitfalls that may be encountered in the clinical setting that impact not only endoscopists and patients, but other specialties as well.

Over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) substantially improved the endoscopic armamentarium for the treatment of severe GI bleeding and can potentially overcome limitations of standard clips. Data indicate a superiority of OTSCs in hemostasis as first- and second-line therapy. However, the impact of the OTSC designs, in particular the traumatic (-t) or atraumatic (-a) type, in duodenal ulcer bleeding has not been analyzed so far.

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective collected database from 2009 to 2020 of 6 German endoscopic centers. All patients who underwent emergency endoscopy and were treated using an OTSC for duodenal ulcer bleeding were included. OTSC-t and OTSC-a patients were compared by the Fisher exact test, χ2 test, or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. A propensity score-based 1:1 matching was performed to obtain equal distribution of baseline characteristics in both groups.

The entire cohort comprised 173 patients (93 OTSC-a, 80 OTSC-t). Age, gender, anticoagulant therapy, Rockall score, and treatment regimen had similar distributions in the 2 groups. However, the OTSC-t group showed significantly more active bleeding ulcers (Forrest Ia/b). Matching identified 132 patients (66 in both groups) with comparable baseline characteristics. Initial bleeding hemostasis (OTSC-a, 90.9%; OTSC-t, 87.9%; P = .82) and 72-hour mortality (OTSC-a, 4.5%; OTSC-t, 6.0%; P > .99) were not significantly different, but the OTSC-t group revealed a clearly higher rate of recurrent bleeding (34.9% vs 7.6%, P < .001) and necessity of red blood cell transfusions (5.1 ± 3.4 vs 2.5 ± 2.4 concentrates, P < .001).

For OTSC use, the OTSC-a should be the preferred option for duodenal ulcer bleeding.

Current endoscopic methods in the control of acute nonvariceal bleeding have a small but clinically significant failure rate. The role of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as the first treatment has not been defined.

To compare OTSCs with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes.

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03216395).

University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong, China, and Australia.

190 adult patients with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Standard hemostatic treatment (n = 97) or OTSC (n = 93).

The primary outcome was 30-day probability of further bleeds. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further intervention, blood transfusion, and hospitalization.

The 30-day probability of further bleeding in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 14.6% (14 of 97) and 3.2% (3 of 93), respectively (risk difference, 11.4 percentage points [95% CI, 3.3 to 20.0 percentage points]; P = 0.006). Failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 6 versus 1 (risk difference, 5.1 percentage points [CI, 0.7 to 11.8 percentage points]), respectively, and 30-day recurrent bleeding was 8 versus 2 (risk difference, 6.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 14.4 percentage points]), respectively. The need for further interventions was 8 versus 2, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 4 versus 2, respectively. In a post hoc analysis with a composite end point of failure to successfully apply assigned treatment and further bleeds, the event rate was 15 of 97 (15.6%) and 6 of 93 (6.5%) in the standard and OTSC groups, respectively (risk difference, 9.1 percentage points [CI, 0.004 to 18.3 percentage points]).

Clinicians were not blinded to treatment and the option of crossover treatment.

Over-the-scope clips, as an initial treatment, may be better than standard treatment in reducing the risk for further bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes that are amenable to OTSC placement.

General Research Fund to the University Grant Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization or are both considered as standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-The-Scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment but a comparison with surgery has not been performed, yet.

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 103 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or surgery (n = 37) for refractory PUB in four tertiary care centers between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (successful hemostasis and no rebleeding within seven days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU-stay and in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression models were performed to define predictive factors for allocation to surgical therapy and for mortality.

Age, comorbidities, anticoagulation therapy, number of pretreatments, ulcer location, and Rockall-Score were similar in both groups. In the surgical group, there were significantly more patients in shock at rebleeding (78.1% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.002), larger ulcers (18.6 ± 7.4 mm vs. 23.0 ± 9.4 mm; p = 0.017) and more FIa bleedings (64.9% vs. 19.7%; p < 0.001) were detected. Clinical success was comparable (74.2% vs. 83.8%; p = 0.329). In the surgical group, length of ICU-stay (16.2 ± 18.0 days vs. 4.7 ± 6.6 days; p < 0.001), severe adverse events (70.3% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (35.1% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.003) were significantly higher. Multivariable analysis defined shock at rebleeding as the main predictor for allocation to surgical therapy (OR 4.063, 95%CI {1.496-11.033}, p = 0.006). Postsurgical adverse events were the main reason for the in-hospital mortality (OR 5.167, 95% CI {1.311-20.363}, p = 0.019).

In this retrospective study, OTSC compared to surgical treatment showed comparable clinical success but was associated with shorter ICU-stay, less severe adverse events and lower in-hospital mortality.

Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is managed by standard endoscopic combination therapy, but a few cases remain difficult and carry a high risk of persistent or recurrent bleeding. The aim of our study was to compare first-line over-the-scope-clips (OTSC) therapy with standard endoscopic treatment in these selected patients.

We conducted a prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre study (NCT03331224). Patients with endoscopic evidence of acute NVUGIB and high risk of rebleeding (defined as complete Rockall Score ≥7) were included. Primary endpoint was clinical success defined as successful endoscopic haemostasis without evidence of recurrent bleeding.

246 patients were screened and 100 patients were finally randomised (mean of 5 cases/centre and year; 70% male, 30% female, mean age 78 years; OTSC group n=48, standard group n=52). All but one case in the standard group were treated with conventional clips. Clinical success was 91.7% (n=44) in the OTSC group compared with 73.1% (n=38) in the ST group (p=0.019), with persistent bleeding occurring in 0 vs 6 in the OTSC versus standard group (p=0.027), all of the latter being successfully managed by rescue therapy with OTSC. Recurrent bleeding was observed in four patients (8.3%) in the OTSC group and in eight patients (15.4%) in the standard group (p=0.362).

OTSC therapy appears to be superior to standard treatment with clips when used by trained physicians for selected cases of primary therapy of NVUGIB with high risk of rebleeding. Further studies are necessary with regards to patient selection to identify subgroups benefiting most from OTSC haemostasis.

NCT03331224.

Over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) are now becoming popular in endoscopy performed in adults for indications such as acute nonvariceal GI bleeding, anastomotic bleeding, and for closure of gastrocutaneous and postgastrostomy fistulae. Varied sizes of clip are available, but even the smallest, 8.5 to 9.8 mm in diameter with its loading device on the tip of the endoscope, increases device and endoscope intubation diameters up to 14.65 mm. This may present challenges in terms of the size of the patient in whom it might be used. OTSCs appear to be effective and safe in the hands of those who are trained appropriately in endoscopy on adult patients; however, the experience of OTSC application in children is not reported. Here we present results of a service evaluation of this technology at 2 regional/national referral pediatric endoscopy units in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Two tertiary centers' databases were searched to identify cases in which OTSCs were used. Demographics, presentation, anthropometry, comorbidities, efficacy, adverse events, and postprocedure follow-up were recorded, with identification of resolution or recurrence.

OTSC procedures were performed on 24 occasions in 20 patients (11 girls) between February 2018 and February 2021. Patients had a mean age of 12 years (range, 5-17) and a mean weight of 44.42 kg (range, 18.2-70.3). Indications were nonhealing PEG site fistulae (n = 7), acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (ANUGIB) from gastric ulcers (5), ANUGIB from duodenal ulcers (3), nonhealing bleeding anastomotic ulcer (3), esophageal mucocutaneous fistula (1), and gastric perforation (1). Technical success was achieved in all but 1 case (95%), and clinical success was achieved in 18 cases (90%).

The OTSC device appears to be effective in children (minimum age 5 years and minimum weight 18 kg) in a limited number of situations including anastomotic ulcer, closure of leaking PEG site, gastric perforation, and bleeding peptic ulcers. The operator should be an experienced endotherapeutic endoscopist with specific OTSC training, and the type and size of the OTSC device should be carefully considered, along with any comorbidities of the patient that may preclude success and/or lead to potential adverse events such as esophageal perforation.

B. Nulsen D. M. Jensen.

Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) or surgery are standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-the-scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment.

To compare OTSC treatment to TAE in refractory peptic ulcer bleeding.

In this retrospective, multicenter study, 128 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or TAE (n = 62) for refractory PUB between 2009 and 2019 in four academic centers were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (hemostasis + no rebleeding within 7 days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU stay, and mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics.

Patients characteristics were similar in both groups but ulcers in the TAE group were larger, more often located in the duodenal bulb (85.5% vs. 65.2%; p = 0.014), and that the proportion of Forrest Ia bleedings was higher (38.7% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.018). Clinical success was comparable in both groups (74.2% vs. 59.7%; p = 0.092). Stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly longer in the TAE group (mean 8.0 vs. 4.7 days; p = 0.002). Serious adverse events after re-therapy (12.9% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.042) and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in the TAE group (9.1 vs. 22.6%, OR 2.92 [95% CI 1.04-8.16]; p = 0.05). After propensity score matching, the differences found regarding ICU stay (4.9± 5.9 and 9.2 ± 11.2; p = 0.009) and in-hospital mortality (5% vs. 22.5%; OR 5.52 [95% CI: 1.11-27.43]; p = 0.048) stayed significant.

OTSC treatment for refractory PUB was superior to TAE in terms of ICU stay and in-hospital mortality.

No prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) has reported patient outcomes of large over-the-scope clip (OTSC) compared to standard hemostasis as initial endoscopic treatment of severe NVUGIB. This was our study aim.

Patients with bleeding ulcers or Dieulafoy's lesions and major stigmata of hemorrhage - SRH (active spurting bleeding, visible vessel, or clot) - or lesser SRH (oozing bleeding or flat spots - with arterial blood flow by Doppler probe) were randomized to OTSC or standard endoscopic hemostasis (with hemoclips or multipolar electrocoagulation - MPEC). Patients and their healthcare providers were blinded to treatments and made all post-randomization management decisions. Ulcer patients received high dose intravenous infusions of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for 3 days, then 27 days of oral PPI. 30 day outcomes were prospectively recorded; data management was with SAS; and data analysis was by a statistician.

53 patients (25 OTSC, 28 Standard) were randomized, with similar baseline risk factors. However, there were significant differences in OTSC vs. Standard groups in rates of rebleeding (4% vs. 28.6%; p = .017; relative risk 0.10, 95% confidence intervals 0.01, 0.91; number needed to treat 4); severe complications (0 % vs. 14.3%); and post-randomization units of red cell transfusions (0.04 vs. 0.68). All rebleeds occurred in patients with major SRH and none with lesser SRH.

1. OTSC significantly reduced rates of rebleeding, severe complications, and post-randomization red cell transfusions. 2. Patients with major stigmata benefited significantly from hemostasis with OTSC, but those with lesser stigmata did not. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03065465).

Dieulafoy's lesion (DL) is a rare but increasingly recognized cause of severe upper GI hemorrhage (SUGIH). There is little consensus regarding the endoscopic approach to management of bleeding from DL.

Our purposes were to compare 30-day outcomes of patients with SUGIH from DL with Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) monitoring of blood flow and guided treatment versus standard visually guided hemostasis (VG).

Eighty-two consecutive DL patients with SUGIH were identified in a large CURE Hemostasis database from previous prospective cohort studies and two recent RCTs at two university-based medical centers. 30-day outcomes including rebleeding, surgery, angiography, death, and severe medical complications were compared between the two treatment groups.

40.2% of DL bleeds occurred in inpatients. 43.9% of patients had cardiovascular disease, and 48.7% were taking medications associated with bleeding. For the entire cohort, 41.3% (26/63) of patients treated with VG had a composite 30-day outcome as compared to 10.5% (2/19) of patients treated with DEP (p = 0.017). Rebleeding occurred within 30 days in 33.3% and 10.5% of those treated with VG and DEP, respectively (p = 0.051). After propensity score matching, the adjusted 30-day composite outcome occurred in 39.0% in the VG group compared to 2.6% in the DEP group (p < 0.001). Adjusted 30-day rebleeding occurred in 25.3% in the VG group versus 2.6% in the DEP group (p < 0.001).

DL patients with SUGIH were frequently inpatients and had severe cardiovascular comorbidities and recurrent bleeding. Lesion arterial blood flow monitoring and obliteration are an effective way to treat bleeding from DL which reduces negative 30-day clinical outcomes.

Background and study aims  Ulcers with high-risk stigmata have significant rebleeding rates despite standard endoscopic therapy. Data on over-the-scope clip (OTSC) for recurrent bleeding is promising but data on first line therapy is lacking. We report comparative outcomes of OTSC as first-line therapy versus standard endoscopic therapy in ulcers with high-risk stigmata. Patients and methods  Consecutive adults who underwent endoscopic therapy for ulcers with high-risk stigmata between July 2019 to September 2020 were included. Patients were grouped into OTSC or standard therapy based on first-line therapy used on index endoscopy. Outcomes measured included: 1) intra-procedural hemostasis based on endoscopic documentation of adequate hemostasis; 2) 7-day rebleeding (> 2 g/dL drop in hemoglobin, hematochezia or hemorrhagic shock); 3) cost of endoscopic interventions; and 4) procedure duration measured as endoscope insertion to removal time. Cost of tools used during the index endoscopy was included. Results  Sixty-eight patients were included, 47 were in standard therapy and 21 in the OTSC group. Hemostasis was achieved in 95.2 % in the OTSC group compared to 83.0 % in the standard therapy group ( P  = 0.256, number needed to treat [NNT]: 9). Procedure time was shorter in the OTSC group (23 vs. 16 minutes, P  = 0.002). Cost of endoscopic interventions were comparable, P  = 0.203. Early rebleeding was less often in OTSC group, two (9.5 %) compared to 10 (21.3 %) in standard therapy group, NNT 9. Conclusions  Use of OTSCs as first-line treatment for ulcers bleed probably improves hemostasis and decreases early rebleeding. Use of OTSC as first-line therapy shortened procedure duration without increasing the cost of endoscopic interventions.

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND : The efficacy and safety of over-the-scope (OTS) clips in the colon is limited. This study aimed to evaluate OTS clip use in the colon in routine colonoscopy.

Using administrative data from a large health insurance company, patients with OTS clip placement during colonoscopy were identified and analyzed by specific administrative codes. Indication for OTS clipping was analyzed, and follow-up was evaluated for surgical and repeat endoscopic interventions.

In 505 patients, indications for OTS clips were iatrogenic perforations (n = 80; Group A), polypectomy (n = 315; Group B), colonic bleeding (n = 51; Group C), and various underlying diseases (n = 59; Group D). In 11 Group A patients (13.8 %), surgical interventions occurred, mostly within 24 hours after clipping (n = 9), predominantly overstitching (n = 8). OTS clipping during polypectomy (Group B) was for complications (e. g. bleeding in 27 %) or was applied prophylactically. Only five patients required early surgery, three of whom had colorectal cancer. In four Group C patients (7.8 %), surgical resections were performed (persistent bleeding n = 1, colorectal cancer n = 2), while six patients underwent early repeat colonoscopy for recurrent bleeding. During further follow-up (days 11-30), 17 patients underwent resection for colonic neoplasms (n = 12) or persistent bleeding (n = 4), but only one case could be directly traced back to local OTS clip complication.

Colonic OTS clipping appears safe and effective in selected indications and complications in clinical routine but must be anatomically and technically feasible, avoiding overuse.

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a common critical disease worldwide, and according to relevant guidelines, surgery and interventional treatment are the final therapies. However, few studies have reported on therapeutic strategies to employ when the ultimate treatment fails. This report offers a reasonable option for hemostasis after surgery and interventional treatment both fail.

A 47-year-old man with recurrent bleeding had undergone endoscopy, surgery, and interventional therapy; however, effective hemostasis was not achieved.

This patient's clinical manifestations and typical gastroscopic findings confirmed duodenal bulb ulcer with hemorrhage INTERVENTIONS:: A Billroth II + Bancroft operation, interventional treatment, and endoscopic hemostasis with an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system were administered.

The bleeding was successfully controlled, and the patient remained well during long-term follow-up.

The OTSC system can represent a reasonable option for ulcer hemostasis after surgery when other interventional therapies have failed.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system has been increasingly utilized as a non-surgical option to endoscopically manage refractory gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage, perforations/luminal defects and fistulas. Limited data exist evaluating the efficacy and safety of OTSC.

To determine the clinical success and adverse event (AE) rates of OTSC across all GI indications.

A PubMed search was conducted for eligible articles describing the application of the OTSC system for any indication in the GI tract. Any article or case series reporting data for less than 5 total patients was excluded. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical success. Secondary outcomes included: Technical success rate, OTSC-related AE rate and requirement for surgical intervention despite-OTSC placement. Pooled rates (per-indication and overall) were calculated as the number of patients with the event of interest divided by the total number of patients.

A total of 85 articles met our inclusion criteria (n = 3025 patients). OTSC was successfully deployed in 94.4% of patients (n = 2856/3025). The overall rate of clinical success (all indications) was 78.4% (n = 2371/3025). Per-indication clinical success rates were as follows: (1) 86.0% (1120/1303) for GI hemorrhage; (2) 85.3% (399/468) for perforation; (3) 55.8% (347/622) for fistulae; (4) 72.6% (284/391) for anastomotic leaks; (5) 92.8% (205/221) for defect closure following endoscopic resection (e.g., following endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection); and (6) 80.0% (16/20) for stent fixation. AE's related to the deployment of OTSC were only reported in 64 of 85 studies (n = 1942 patients), with an overall AE rate of 2.1% (n = 40/1942). Salvage surgical intervention was required in 4.7% of patients (n = 143/3025).

This systematic review demonstrates that the OTSC system is a safe and effective endoscopic therapy to manage GI hemorrhage, perforations, anastomotic leaks, defects created by endoscopic resections and for stent fixation. Clinical success in fistula management appears limited. Further studies, including randomized controlled trials comparing OTSC with conventional and/or surgical therapies, are needed to determine which indication(s) are the most effective for its use.

Monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation (MHFSC) have been compared with hemoclips, heater probe, and argon plasma coagulation (APC) for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared MHFSC with other modalities in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. We reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to 7 January 2019 to identify studies comparing MHFSC with other modalities for peptic ulcer bleeding. The primary outcome of interest was achievement of initial hemostasis. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding, adverse events, procedure time, and length of hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model and summarized as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included five randomized controlled trials and one observational study comprising 693 patients with endoscopically confirmed actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) or nonbleeding visible vessel. MHFSC was superior to other modalities in achieving initial hemostasis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.81; I = 67%) and prevention of rebleeding (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09-0.86; I = 46%). Rates of adverse events were similar between MHFSC and other modalities. Procedure times were shorter with MHFSC (mean difference -4.15 min; 95% CI -4.83 to -3.47; I= 59%). Length of hospital stay was also shorter with MHFSC. MHFSC appears to be more effective than other modalities for achievement of initial hemostasis and reduction of rebleeding among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

Effective hemostasis is essential to prevent rebleeding. We evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of the Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC) system compared to combined therapy (through-the-scope clips with epinephrine injection) as a first-line endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.

We retrospectively analyzed data of 95 patients from a single, tertiary center and underwent either OTSC (n = 46) or combined therapy (n = 49). The primary outcome of the present study was the efficacy of the OTSC system as a first-line therapy in patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers compared to combined therapy with TTS clips and epinephrine injection. The secondary outcomes included the rebleeding rate, perforation rate, mean procedure time, reintervention rate, mean procedure cost and days of hospitalization in the two study groups within 30 days of the index procedure.

All patients achieved hemostasis within the procedure; two patients in the OTSC group and four patients in the combined therapy group developed rebleeding (p = 0.444). No patients experienced gastrointestinal perforation. OTSC had a shorter median procedure time than combined therapy (11 min versus 20 min; p < 0.001). The procedure cost was superior for OTSC compared to combined therapy ($102,000 versus $101,000; p < 0.001). We found no significant difference in the rebleeding prevention rate (95.6% versus 91.8%, p = 0.678), hospitalization days (3 days versus 4 days; p = 0.215), and hospitalization costs ($108,000 versus $240,000, p = 0.215) of the OTSC group compared to the combined therapy group.

OTSC treatment is an effective and feasible first-line therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. OTSC confers comparable costs and patient outcomes as combined treatments, with a shorter procedure time.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term behavior of the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) after gastric application.Material and methods: A database of all patients who had OTSC placement with regular follow-up at a tertiary hospital between November 2013 and September 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. The incidence, time, and related adverse events of clip attachment and detachment were recorded. The relationship between the position of the clip and detachment was assessed by Fisher's exact test.Results: Seventy-two patients who had gastric OTSC placement due to iatrogenic perforations by endoscopic interventions were included in the study. The overall incidence of clip detachment was 27.8% (20/72). Fisher's exact test confirmed a significant association between clip detachment rate and clip position (p = .005): cardia 50% (3/6); gastric fundus 13.2% (5/38); gastric body 75% (9/16); and gastric antrum 25% (3/12). Except for one patient (5%; 1/20) who experienced minor gastric hemorrhage, there were no complications related to spontaneous clip detachment. There was no delayed bleeding, perforation, or obstruction due to clips staying in place in the long-term.Conclusions: Long-term gastric clip attachment appears to be safe even if spontaneous detachment occurs.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is defined as the bleeding originating from the esophagus to the ligament of Treitz and further classified into variceal and non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains a common clinical problem globally. It is associated with high mortality, morbidity, and cost of the health care system. Despite the continuous improvement of therapeutic endoscopy, the 30-d readmission rate secondary to rebleeding and associated mortality is an ongoing issue. Available Food and Drug Administration approved traditional or conventional therapeutic endoscopic modalities includes epinephrine injection, argon plasma coagulation, heater probe, and placement of through the scope clip, which can be used alone or in combination to decrease the risk of rebleeding. Recently, more attention has been paid to the novel advanced endoscopic devices for primary treatment of the bleeding lesion and as a secondary measure when conventional therapies fail to achieve hemostasis. This review highlights emerging endoscopic modalities used in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal related bleeding such as over-the-scope clip, Coagrasper, hemostatic sprays, radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, endoscopic suturing devices, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided angiotherapy. In this review article, we will also discuss the technical aspects of the common procedures, outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy, and their advantages and limitations in the setting of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment.

The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached.

The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

The over-the-scope clip is a novel endoscopic tool developed for tissue compression in the gastrointestinal tract. It has already revolutionized the management of acute perforations and leaks. In the past decade, it has also increasingly been used for treatment of severe and/or refractory gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Available studies report high rates of primary hemostasis and rebleeding. This article provides an overview on available literature, potential indications, and technical aspects of hemostasis with over-the-scope clip.

Endoscopic treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding can be challenging. This article reports on the use of the endoscopic clipping over the scope technique to treat acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding. In particular, it describes the approaches and outcomes of using the technique for acute severe bleeding in the colon and the anal transition zone. The following synopsis is the one that you supplied, but lightly copyedited. Please confirm OK. Please note that the synopsis will appear in PubMed: Endoscopic treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding can be challenging. This article reports on the use of the endoscopic clipping over the scope technique to treat acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding. In particular, it describes the approaches and outcomes of using the technique for acute severe bleeding in the colon and the anal transition zone.

Background and study aims  The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) is a novel tool used to improve the maintenance of hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB); however, studies on the comparison with "conventional" techniques are lacking. In this study, we aimed to compare first-line endoscopic hemostasis achieved using conventional techniques with that achieved using OTSC placement for NVUGIB. Patients and methods  From January 2007 to March 2018, 793 consecutive patients underwent upper endoscopy with the hemostasis procedure. Among them, 327 patients were eligible for inclusion (112 patients had OTSC placement and 215 underwent conventional hemostasis). After propensity score matching and adjustment for confounding factors, 84 patients were stratified into the "conventional" group and 84 into the OTSC group. Patient characteristics and outcomes (rebleeding rate, mortality rate within 30 days, and adverse events) were compared between the two groups. Results  In the unmatched cohort, hemostasis with OTSC was more frequent in cases of duodenal ulcers with Forrest Ia to IIa and in patients with a higher Rockall score compared with the "conventional group". In the matched cohort, 93 % of the patients in the "conventional group" underwent hemostasis with epinephrine + through-the-scope clip. Rebleeding events were significantly less frequent in the OTSC group (8 % vs 20 %, 95 %CI 3 - 16 vs 12 - 30; P  = 0.02); however, the mortality rate in the two groups was not significantly different (6 % vs 2 %, 95 %CI 1 - 8 vs 2 - 13; P  = 0.4). Conclusions  OTSC is a safe and effective tool for achieving hemostasis, and we recommend its use as the first-line therapy for lesions with a high risk of rebleeding and in patients with a high risk Rockall score.

Despite major improvements in endoscopic devices and therapeutic endoscopy, closure of gastrointestinal perforations, dehiscence, and fistulae had remained problematic. However, since the advent of devices such as the over the scope clip and others, endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal defects has become a routine approach. Furthermore, because of its strong apposition force, the over the scope clip may also be used to anchor fully covered self-expanding metal stents. In addition, the over the scope clip is an effective rescue therapy for various types of gastrointestinal bleeding pathologies. It is frequently used as an additional tool in complex gastrointestinal leak cases requiring internal and external drains.

Conventional endoscopic treatments can't control bleeding in as many as 20% of patients with non-variceal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Recent studies have shown that over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) system allowed for effective hemostasis for refractory GI bleeding lesions. So we aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the OTSC system for management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library covering the period from January 2007 to May 2019. The literature was selected independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0.

A total of 16 studies including 769 patients with 778 GI bleeding lesions were identified. Pooled technical success was achieved in 761 lesions [95.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 93.5-97.2%], and the pooled clinical success was achieved in 666 lesions (84.2, 95% CI, 77.4-89.2%). The incidence of re-bleeding was reported in 81 patients and the post-procedure mortality was 10.9% (n = 84). Only 2 (0.3%) patients occurred complications after OTSC system procedure.

Our study demonstrated that the OTSC system was a technically feasible modality and highly efficacious in achieving hemostasis in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for GI nonvariceal bleeding. Although some of the devices and techniques used for this purpose have been well studied, others are relatively new, with few available outcomes data.

In this document, we review devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding, the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety, and financial considerations for their use.

Devices used for endoscopic hemostasis in the GI tract can be classified into injection devices (needles), thermal devices (multipolar/bipolar probes, hemostatic forceps, heater probe, argon plasma coagulation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryotherapy), mechanical devices (clips, suturing devices, banding devices, stents), and topical devices (hemostatic sprays).

Endoscopic evaluation and treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of nonvariceal upper- and lower-GI bleeding. A variety of devices is available for hemostasis of bleeding lesions in the GI tract. Other than injection therapy, which should not be used as monotherapy, there are few compelling data that strongly favor any one device over another. For endoscopists, the choice of a hemostatic device should depend on the type and location of the bleeding lesion, the availability of equipment and expertise, and the cost of the device.

Background and study aims  It is unclear if the clinical success rate of the over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is comparable when it is used in the first- or in the second-line of treatment. Patients and methods  Data on endoscopic treatment (first- vs. second-line) in PUB with OTSC and clinical data were analyzed. The primary outcome was the clinical success of hemostasis, defined as the absence of recurrent bleeding or further intervention. Secondary outcomes were factors associated with OTSC failure. Results  From April 2014 to March 2018, 100 patients (age 72 [20 - 98] y, female 36 %) with PUB in the stomach or the duodenum were treated endoscopically with the OTSC. The OTSC was used as a first-line procedure (primary-OTSC) in 66 pts. Successful hemostasis could be achieved in 90.9 %. After failure of an initial endoscopic treatment, 34 patients were treated with the OTSC (secondary-OTSC) and the treatment was successful in 94.1 %. Recurrent bleeding occurred in n = 10 for primary-OTSC (16.7 %) and in n = 7 pts in the secondary-OTSC (21.9 %) ( P  = 0.81). Clinical success in the primary-OTSC was 75.8 % and 73.5 % in the secondary-OTSC respectively. Conclusions  The OTSC has a high rate of initial bleeding control in first- and second line treatment of PUB. OTSC failure occurs more often in the duodenum than in the stomach and results in longer intensive care unit stay, higher amount of transfusions, and a higher reimbursement per case.

Rescue therapy for gastrointestinal (GI) refractory bleeding, perforation, and fistula has traditionally required surgical interventions owing to the limited performance of conventional endoscopic instruments and techniques. An innovative clipping system, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC), may play an important role in rescue therapy. This innovative device is proposed as the final option in endoscopic treatment. The device presents several advantages including having a powerful sewing force for closure of GI defects using a simple mechanism and also having an innovative feature, whereby a large defect and fistula can be sealed using accessory forceps. Consequently, it is able to provide outstanding clinical effects for rescue therapy. This review clarifies the current status and limitations of OTSC according to different indications of GI refractory disease, including refractory bleeding, perforation, fistula, and anastomotic dehiscence. An extensive literature search identified studies reported 10 or more cases in which the OTSC system was applied. A total of 1517 cases described in 30 articles between 2010 and 2018 were retrieved. The clinical success rates and complications were calculated overall and for each indication. The average clinical success rate was 78% (n = 1517) overall, 85% for bleeding (n = 559), 85% (n = 351) for perforation, 52% (n = 388) for fistula, 66% (n = 97) for anastomotic dehiscence, and 95% (n = 122) for other conditions, respectively. The overall and severe OTSC-associated complications were 1.7% (n = 23) and 0.59% (n = 9), respectively. This review concludes that the OTSC system may serve as a safe and productive device for GI refractory diseases, albeit with limited success for fistula.

Endoscopic hemostasis in patients with non-variceal bleeding (NVGIB) with standard therapy has improved outcomes. However, persistent bleeding and re-bleeding continues to drive morbidity and mortality. Use of over-the-scope clips (OTSC) is an emerging treatment modality for managing gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the ability of OTSC to achieve primary hemostasis and re-bleeding rates as primary therapy and rescue endoscopic interventions in patients with NVGIB.

We searched articles in PubMed, Ovid Medline In- Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from inception to July 2017 using keywords such as "OTSC" and "NVGIB."

A total of 16 studies which involved 475 patients met the inclusion criteria. 288 patients were treated with OTSC as primary therapy while 187 patients were treated with OTSC as rescue therapy. Primary hemostasis rate achieved with primary endoscopic therapy with OTSC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96). Similarly, primary hemostasis rate achieved with rescue endoscopic therapy with OTSC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95). Re-bleeding rates after primary endoscopic therapy with OTSC was 0.21 (95% CI:0.08-0.43) and 0.25 (95% CI:0.17-0.34) with rescue therapy. There was a decreased risk of re-bleeding in patients treated with OTSC as primary therapy versus rescue therapy. RR=0.52 (95% CI: 0.31-0.89).

This meta-analysis demonstrates success on the use of OTSC as primary and rescue therapy in the management of NVGIB. Further trials should clarify the ideal setting for the use of OTSC and assess the cost of these devices as compared to standard therapy.

Background and study aims  Endoscopic treatment is the mainstay approach for gastrointestinal bleeding, in either upper (UGIB) or lower (LGIB) tract. The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) may overcome limitations of standard clips or thermocoagulation in high-risk bleeding lesions. We evaluate the main clinically relevant outcomes following endoscopic hemostasis with OTSC in high-risk lesions and/or patients. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected databases including all patients with UGIB and LGIB who underwent OTCS placement as first-line treatment in eleven tertiary endoscopic referral centers. Technical success, primary hemostasis, rebleeding, blood transfusion, hospital stay, and hemorrhage-related mortality rates were evaluated. Results  Data from 286 patients, with either UGIB (N = 214) or LGIB (N = 72) were available. Overall, 112 patients (39.2 %) were receiving antithrombotic therapy. Technical success and primary hemostasis rates were 97.9 % and 96.4 %, respectively. Early rebleeding occurred in 4.4 %, more frequently in those on antithrombotic therapy, and no late rebleeding was observed. Following a successful primary haemostasis, only 5.2 % patients needed blood transfusions, and the median hospital stay was 4 days (range: 3 - 11). Eighteen patients with either technical failure (N = 6) or rebleeding (N = 12) underwent radiological or surgical approaches. Overall, bleeding-related deaths occurred in 5 (1.7 %) patients, including 3 patients with technical procedural failure, and 2 in the rebleeding group.  Conclusions  Data from our large, multicenter study show that OTSC placement is an effective first-line treatment for hemostasis in high-risk patients and/or lesions both in upper and lower gastrointestinal tract.

There is little published experience with the use of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) in pediatric patients. The aim of this study is to present our single-center experience utilizing OTSCs for nonvariceal gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

This is a retrospective case series of pediatric patients who underwent endoscopic management of GI bleeding during which OTSCs were used.

Eleven cases of OTSC utilization for hemostasis were identified in 10 unique patients between November 2014 and May 2016. The median age at intervention was 14.7 years (range 3.9-16.8 years) and median weight was 39 kg (range 17.4-85.8 kg). Technical success and hemostasis were achieved in all cases and there were no complications. Median follow-up was 32.9 months (range 21.2-39.4 months). All nonanastomotic ulcers (4), polypectomy bleeding (2), and sphincterotomy bleeding (1) had no evidence of recurrent GI bleeding at last follow-up. Two patients with anastomotic ulcerations required additional medical interventions.

Our series demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the OTSCs in the pediatric population for acute GI bleeding throughout the GI tract. In our experience, it is effective for nonanastomotic ulcers, postpolypectomy bleeding, and postsphincterotomy bleeding even when other hemostatic techniques have failed. OTSCs may be less effective in the setting of anastomotic ulcerations, reaffirming the refractory nature of these lesions.

Endoscopic hemostasis is effective in treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. However, rebleeding is difficult to treat and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. We performed a prospective randomized trial to determine whether over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) are more effective than standard treatment of severe recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

We performed our study at 9 academic referral centers (in Germany, Switzerland, and Hong Kong) from March 2013 through September 2016. Adult patients with recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding following initially successful hemostasis (66 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis) were randomly assigned to groups (1:1) that underwent hemostasis with either OTSC or standard therapy. Standard therapy was defined as hemostasis with through-the-scope clips (TTSC, n = 31) or thermal therapy plus injection with diluted adrenaline (n = 2). The primary endpoint was further bleeding (a composite endpoint of a persistent bleeding despite endoscopic therapy according to the protocol or recurrent bleeding within 7 days after successful hemostasis). Patients with further bleeding were allowed to cross over to OTSC therapy. Main secondary endpoints were mortality, necessity of surgical or angiographic salvage therapy, duration of stay in the hospital or intensive care, number of blood units transfused, and complications associated with endoscopic therapy.

Persistent bleeding after per-protocol hemostasis was observed in 14 patients (42.4%) in the standard therapy group and 2 patients (6.0%) in the OTSC group (P = .001). Recurrent bleeding within 7 days occurred in 5 patients (16.1%) in the standard therapy group vs 3 patients (9.1%) in the OTSC group (P = .468). Further bleeding occurred in 19 patients (57.6%) in the standard therapy group and in 5 patients (15.2%) in the OTSC group (absolute difference 42.4%; 95% confidence interval 21.6-63.2; P = .001) Within 30 days of follow-up, 1 patient in the standard therapy group (3.0%) and 1 patient in the OTSC group (3.0%) required surgical therapy (P = .999). Within 30 days of the procedure, 2 patients died in the standard therapy group (6.3%) and 4 patients died in the OTSC group (12.1%) (P = .672). There were no significant differences in the other secondary endpoints.

In prospective randomized trial, we found endoscopic treatment with OTSCs to be superior to standard therapy with TTSCs for patients with recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. STING Study, Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT1836900.

Despite major improvements in endoscopic devices and therapeutic endoscopy, rebleeding rates and mortality have remained the same for several decades. Therefore, much interest has been paid to emerging therapeutic devices, such as the over-the-scope clip and hemostatic sprays. Other emerging technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation, endoscopic suturing devices, and ultrasound-guided angiotherapy, are also being investigated to improve therapeutic outcomes in specific situations. This narrative review details the technical aspects, clinical applications, outcomes, and potential limitations of these devices in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Endoscopic treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) with high-risk adverse outcome (HR-AO) features has a high risk of failure. We studied the safety and efficacy of over-the-scope clips (OTSC) to treat these lesions.

We included patients who were treated using OTSC for NVUGIB from January 2015 to October 2017. We studied rebleeding and mortality rates and used the Rockall data and our institution's prior data for comparison. We used descriptive and chi-square statistics.

We studied 18 patients with 19 bleeding lesions: 9 (47 %) duodenal ulcers, 4 (21 %) Dieulafoy's lesion, 3 (16 %) gastric ulcer, and 3 (16 %) bleeding after gastric biopsy, gastric polypectomy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of peri-gastric mass. We applied OTSC as the first-line treatment in 10 (53 %) and as the second-line treatment in 9 (47 %) bleeding lesions. Continued bleeding after OTSC occurred in six patients, but we treated it successfully and achieved complete hemostasis in all patients. We found OTSC use significantly decreased (0 % vs. 53 %, P  < 0.01) and reduced (0 % vs. 24 %, P  = 0.08) the rebleeding rate in our high-risk (RS ≥ 8) and intermediate-risk (RS = 4 - 7) Rockall score patients as compared to the rates reported by the Rockall study, respectively. When compared to our institution's prior study, we found a decrease in the rebleeding rate with OTSC (0 % vs. 21 %, P  = 0.06) in our intermediate-to-high risk Rockall score patients (RS ≥ 4). There was no difference in mortality rates as compared to both control studies.

Use of OTSC is safe, efficacious and appears superior to standard treatment for HR-AO NVUGIB. OTSC should be considered as first-line treatment for HR-AO bleeding.

Standard endoscopic therapies do not control bleeding or produce complications in as many as 20% of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Most bleeding comes from ulcers with characteristics such as high-risk vascular territories and/or large vessels. We evaluated the efficacy of using over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as primary or rescue therapy for patients with bleeding from lesions that have a high risk for adverse outcomes.

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 67 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding from high-risk lesions who were treated with OTSCs as primary (n = 49) or rescue therapy (n = 18) at a quaternary center, from December 2011 through February 2015. The definition of high-risk lesions was lesions that were situated in the area of a major artery and larger than 2 mm in diameter and/or a deep penetrating, excavated, fibrotic ulcer with high-risk stigmata, in which a perforation could not be ruled out or thermal therapy would cause perforation, or lesions that could not be treated by standard endoscopy. Clinical severity was determined based on the Rockall score and a modified Blatchford score. Our primary outcome was the incidence of rebleeding within 30 days after OTSC placement. We assessed risk factors for rebleeding using univariate hazard models followed by multivariable analysis.

Of the 67 patients, 47 (70.1%) remained free of rebleeding at 30 days after OTSC placement. We found no difference in the proportion of patients with rebleeding who received primary or rescue therapy (hazard ratio, 0.639; 95% confidence interval, 0.084-4.860; P = .6653). Only 9 rebleeding events were linked clearly to OTSCs and required intervention, indicating an OTSC success rate of 81.3%. We found no significant associations between rebleeding and clinical scores. However, on multivariable analysis, patients with coronary artery disease had a higher risk of rebleeding after OTSC independent of international normalized ratio and antiplatelet use (hazard ratio, 7.30; P = .0002).

In a retrospective analysis of 67 patients with bleeding from high-risk gastrointestinal lesions, we found OTSCs to prevent rebleeding in more than 80% of cases. In the past, these lesions were treated with surgical or radiologic interventions. Patients with coronary artery disease have an increased risk of rebleeding after OTSCs, suggesting the need for escalated therapies.