4.5 Article

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 363-378

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.12639

Keywords

bleeding peptic ulcer; endoscopic hemostasis; endoscopic examination; gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding; upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04806] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopicmanagement of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available