Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis

Descripción del Articulo

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Materials and methods: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Benites-Goñi, Harold, Alférez-Andía, Jessica, Piscoya, Alejandro, Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos, Hernandez, Adrian V.
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2024
Institución:Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú
Repositorio:Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
Lenguaje:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ojs.revistagastroperu.com:article/1623
Enlace del recurso:https://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
id REVSGP_f60b68ffb10290f3b95ac1b0c76f7b14
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistagastroperu.com:article/1623
network_acronym_str REVSGP
network_name_str Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
repository_id_str .
spelling Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysisEfficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysisBenites-Goñi, HaroldAlférez-Andía, JessicaPiscoya, AlejandroDiaz-Arocutipa, CarlosHernandez, Adrian V.EndoscopyGastrointestinal hemorrhageMeta-analysisEndoscopyGastrointestinal hemorrhageMeta-analysisObjective: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Materials and methods: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a randomeffects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. Results: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. Conclusions: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Materials and methods: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a randomeffects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. Results: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. Conclusions: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú2024-06-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú; Vol. 44 No. 2 (2024)Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú; Vol. 44 Núm. 2 (2024)1609-722X1022-5129reponame:Revista de Gastroenterología del Perúinstname:Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perúinstacron:SOCIOGASTROenghttps://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623/1245Derechos de autor 2024 Harold Benites-Goñi, Jessica Alférez-Andía, Alejandro Piscoya, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Adrian V. Hernandezhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ojs.revistagastroperu.com:article/16232025-04-11T20:18:55Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
Benites-Goñi, Harold
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Benites-Goñi, Harold
Alférez-Andía, Jessica
Piscoya, Alejandro
Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos
Hernandez, Adrian V.
author Benites-Goñi, Harold
author_facet Benites-Goñi, Harold
Alférez-Andía, Jessica
Piscoya, Alejandro
Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos
Hernandez, Adrian V.
author_role author
author2 Alférez-Andía, Jessica
Piscoya, Alejandro
Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos
Hernandez, Adrian V.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
topic Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
description Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Materials and methods: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a randomeffects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. Results: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. Conclusions: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-06-26
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623
url https://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistagastroperu.com/index.php/rgp/article/view/1623/1245
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú; Vol. 44 No. 2 (2024)
Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú; Vol. 44 Núm. 2 (2024)
1609-722X
1022-5129
reponame:Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
instname:Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú
instacron:SOCIOGASTRO
instname_str Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú
instacron_str SOCIOGASTRO
institution SOCIOGASTRO
reponame_str Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
collection Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1865098735188443136
score 13.069414
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).