3.8 Article

Use of over-the-scope clips (OTSC) for hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding in patients under antithrombotic therapy

期刊

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 E324-E330

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-104860

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and study aims In patients taking different regimens of antithrombotic and/or anticoagulant therapy, endoscopic management of gastrointestinal bleeding represents a major challenge due to failing endogenous hemostasis. In this retrospective study we report on success rates with the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in this highrisk patient population. Patients and methods Between February 2011 and June 2014, 75 patients were treated with an OTSC for active gastrointestinal bleeding. Success rates with the first endoscopic therapy, rebleeding episodes, their management and the influence of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy were analyzed retrospectively. Results Application of the OTSC resulted in immediate hemostasis (primary success rate) in all 75 patients. However, in 34.7% a rebleeding episode was noted that could be treated by further endoscopic interventions. Only 3 patients had to be sent to the operating room because of failure of endoscopic therapy. In the rebleeding group the use of antiplatelet therapies was higher (73.1% vs. 48.9 %). Conclusions Application of the OTSC in GI bleeding results in a high rate of primary hemostasis. Rebleeding occurs in up to 35% of patients receiving antithrombotic/anticoagulant therapy but can be managed successfully with further endoscopic treatments. Patients in the rebleeding group were more frequently treated with antiplatelet agents. Radiological or surgical therapy was reserved for a small subgroup not successfully managed by repeated endoscopic therapies. OTSC application is the treatment of choice in high-risk patients when conventional clips used as first-line treatment fail.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据