Systematic review and meta-analysis: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

Department

Internal Medicine

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

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. 2 2 2 2

First Page

678

Last Page

685

DOI

10.1097/MEG.0000000000001738

Publication Date

1-1-2020

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS