Variation in exposure to endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding during UK gastroenterology training

IntroductionGastroenterologists are typically expected to be competent in endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB), with the Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) often heralding the onset of participation in on-call AUGIB rotas. We analysed the volume of haemostasis experience recorded by gastroenterology CCT holders on the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Training System (JETS) e-portfolio, the UK electronic portfolio for endoscopy, and assessed for variations in exposure to haemostasis.MethodsUK gastroenterologists awarded CCT between April 2014 and April 2017 were retrospectively identified from the specialist register. Credentials were cross-referenced with JETS to retrieve AUGIB haemostasis procedures prior to CCT. Procedures were collated according to variceal versus non-variceal therapies and compared across training deaneries.ResultsOver the 3-year study period, 241 gastroenterologists were awarded CCT. 232 JETS e-portfolio users were included for analysis. In total, 12 932 haemostasis procedures were recorded, corresponding to a median of 42 (IQR 21–71) per gastroenterologist. Exposure to non-variceal modalities (median 28, IQR 15–52) was more frequent than variceal therapies (median 11, IQR 5–22; p<0.001). By procedure, adrenaline injection (median 12, IQR 6–23) and variceal band ligation (median 10, IQR 5–20) were most commonly recorded, whereas sclerotherapy experience was rare (median 0, IQR 0–1). Exposure to haemostasis did not differ by year of CCT (p=0.130) but varied significantly by deanery (p<0.001), with median procedures ranging from 20–126.ConclusionExposure to AUGIB haemostasis during UK gastroenterology training varied across deaneries and procedural modalities which should prompt urgent locoregional review of access and delivery of training. Endoscopy departments should ensure the availability of supportive provisions in haemostasis (i.e. training/upskilling, supervision, mentorship) during the early post-CCT period.

Prophylactic angiographic embolisation after endoscopic control of bleeding to high-risk peptic ulcers: a randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesIn the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, recurrent bleeding is associated with high mortality. We investigated if added angiographic embolisation after endoscopic haemostasis to high-risk ulcers could reduce recurrent bleeding.DesignAfter endoscopic haemostasis to their bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, we randomised patients with at least one of these criteria (ulcers≥20 mm in size, spurting bleeding, hypotensive shock or haemoglobin<9 g/dL) to receive added angiographic embolisation or standard treatment. Our primary endpoint was recurrent bleeding within 30 days.ResultsBetween January 2010 and July 2014, 241 patients were randomised (added angiographic embolisation n=118, standard treatment n=123); 22 of 118 patients (18.6%) randomised to angiography did not receive embolisation. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 12 (10.2%) in the embolisation and 14 (11.4%) in the standard treatment group reached the primary endpoint (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.46; p=0.745). The rate of reinterventions (13 vs 17; p=0.510) and deaths (3 vs 5, p=0.519) were similar. In a per-protocol analysis, 6 of 96 (6.2%) rebled after embolisation compared with 14 of 123 (11.4%) in the standard treatment group (HR 1.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.92; p=0.192). None of 96 patients died after embolisation compared with 5 (4.1%) deaths in the standard treatment group (p=0.108). In a posthoc analysis, embolisation reduced recurrent bleeding only in patients with ulcers≥15 mm in size (2 (4.5%) vs 12 (23.1%); p=0.027).ConclusionsAfter endoscopic haemostasis, added embolisation does not reduce recurrent bleeding.Trial registration numberNCT01142180.