Is early endoscopy in the emergency room beneficial in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer? A "fortuitously controlled" study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In previous randomized trials, early endoscopy improved the outcome in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer, though most of these studies defined "early" as endoscopy performed within 24 hours after admission. Using the length of hospital stay as the primary criterion for the clinical outcome, we compared the results of endoscopy done immediately after admission (early endoscopy in the emergency room, EEE) with endoscopy postponed to a time within the first 24 hours after hospitalization, but still during normal working hours ("delayed" endoscopy in the endoscopy unit, DEU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 81 consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcer admitted in 1997 and 1998 (age range 16 - 90 years). Of these 81 patients, 38 underwent DEU (the standard therapy at the hospital) and 43 underwent EEE. Patients in the two groups were comparable with regard to admission criteria, were equally distributed with respect to their risk of adverse outcome (assessed using the Baylor bleeding score and the Rockall score), and differed only in the treatment they received. Endoscopic hemostasis was performed whenever possible in all patients with Forrest types I, IIa, and IIb ulcer bleeding. RESULTS: We found similar rates in the two groups for recurrent bleeding (16 % in DEU patients vs. 14 % in EEE patients), persistent bleeding (8 % in DEU patients vs. none in EEE patients), medical complications (21 % in DEU patients vs. 26 % in EEE patients), the need for surgery (8 % in DEU patients vs. 9 % in EEE patients), and the length of hospital stay (5.1 days for DEU patients vs. 5.9 days for EEE patients). None of the differences between the two groups in these parameters were statistically significant. None of the patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Early endoscopy in an emergency room did not improve the clinical outcome in our 81 consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

Meta-analysis: The treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

To evaluate therapies available for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, and provide consensus recommendations for their use, a total of 51 double-blind clinical trials using bulking agents, prokinetics, antispasmodics, alosetron, tegaserod and antidepressants were selected. The quality of studies was assessed using 5-point scale. Meta-analyses were performed on all studies, and on 'high-quality studies'. The efficacy of fibre in the global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms relief (OR: 1.9; 95% CI:1.5-2.4) was lost after exclusion of low-quality trials (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.0-2.0, P = 0.06). When excluding the low-quality trials, an improvement of global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms with all antispasmodics (OR: 2.1; 95% CI:1.8-2.9) was maintained only for octylonium bromide, but on the basis of only two studies. Antidepressants were effective (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9-3.5), even after exclusion of low-quality studies (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.7). Alosetron (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9-2.6) and tegaserod (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.5) showed a significant effect in women. We recommend the use of tegaserod for women with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and alosetron for women with severe irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea. Antidepressants can be beneficial for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea patients with severe symptoms. Loperamide can be recommended in painless diarrhoea. Evidence is weak to recommend the use of bulking agents in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation.