Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.443
Peer-review started: May 14, 2019
First decision: June 3, 2019
Revised: June 16, 2019
Accepted: July 20, 2019
Article in press: July 3, 2019
Published online: August 16, 2019
Processing time: 96 Days and 8.6 Hours
The present armamentarium of endoscopic hemostatic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage includes injection, electrocautery and clips. There are newer endoscopic options such as hemostatic sprays, endoscopic suturing and modifications of current options including coagulation forceps and over-the-scope clips. Peptic hemorrhage is the most prevalent type of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and traditional endoscopic interventions have demonstrated significant hemostasis success. However, the hemostatic success rate is less for other entities such as Dieulafoy’s lesions and bleeding from malignant lesions. Novel innovations such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and peroral endoscopic myotomy has spawned a need for dependable hemostasis. Gastric antral vascular ectasias are associated with chronic gastrointestinal bleeding and usually treated by standard argon plasma coagulation (APC), but newer modalities such as radiofrequency ablation, banding, cryotherapy and hybrid APC have been utilized as well. We will opine on whether the newer hemostatic modalities have generated success when traditional modalities fail and should any of these modalities be routinely available in the endoscopic toolbox.
Core tip: New devices are available for hemostasis of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage that may supplement or supplant traditional modalities. These devices however have a varying track record in hemostasis with different learning curves, costs and detriments.