Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic versus medical management of peptic ulcers with adherent clots

Abstract

AbstractPeptic ulcer disease is an important cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic treatment for ulcers with active bleeding or non‐bleeding visible vessels, but the optimal management of ulcers with adherent clots is unclear. We performed a systematic review of the efficacy of endoscopic versus medical management of peptic ulcers with adherent clots. A systematic literature search was performed through September 2022 (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of endoscopic versus medical management alone for peptic ulcers with adherent clots on the outcome of recurrent bleeding were incuded. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the overall treatment effect. We included seven RCTs reporting on the endoscopic versus medical management of peptic ulcers with adherent clots. The pooled cohort comprised 268 patients with a mean age of 62.8 years and a mean follow up of 20 days. There was a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent bleeding with endoscopic hemostatic treatment for peptic ulcers with adherent clots, compared with medical management alone (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.95, 268 participants). However, there was no difference in mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.23–3.59, 52 participants) or need for ulcer surgery (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.10–2.28, 52 participants) between endoscopic and medical management groups. In summary, there was evidence for a reduction in recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers with adherent clots treated with endoscopic hemostatic techniques compared with medical management alone but no difference in rates of mortality or need for surgery.