Open AccessArgon plasma coagulation for the endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal tumor bleeding: A retrospective comparison with a non‐treated historical cohort
Author(s) -
Martins Bruno Costa,
Wodak Stephanie,
Gusmon Carla C,
SafatleRibeiro Adriana Vaz,
Kawaguti Fabio Shiguehissa,
Baba Elisa Ryoka,
Pennacchi Caterina MP,
Lima Marcelo Simas,
Ribeiro Ulysses,
MalufFilho Fauze
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
ueg journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.667
H-Index - 35
eISSN - 2050-6414
pISSN - 2050-6406
DOI - 10.1177/2050640615590303
Subject(s) - medicine , argon plasma coagulation , hemostasis , retrospective cohort study , cohort , gastroenterology , surgery , gastrointestinal bleeding , upper gastrointestinal bleeding , endoscopy
Background The endoscopic use of argon plasma coagulation (APC) to achieve hemostasis for upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding (UGITB) has not been adequately evaluated in controlled trials. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of APC for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding from malignant lesions. Methods Between January and September 2011, all patients with UGITB underwent high‐potency APC therapy (up to 70 Watts). This group was compared with a historical cohort of patients admitted between January and December 2010, when the endoscopic treatment of bleeding malignancies was not routinely performed. Patients were stratified into two categories, grouping the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale: Category I (ECOG 0–2) patients with a good clinical status and Category II (ECOG 3–4) patients with a poor clinical status. Results Our study had 25 patients with UGITB whom underwent APC treatment and 28 patients whom received no endoscopic therapy. The clinical characteristics of the groups were similar, except for endoscopic active bleeding, which was more frequently detected in APC group. We had 15 patients in the APC group whom had active bleeding, and initial hemostasis was obtained in 11 of them (73.3%). In the control group, four patients had active bleeding. There were no differences in 30‐day re‐bleeding (33.3% in the APC group versus 14.3% in the control group; p = 0.104) and 30‐day mortality rates (20.8% in the APC group, versus 42.9% in the control group; p = 0.091). When patients were categorized according to their ECOG status, we found that APC therapy had no impact in re‐bleeding and mortality rates (Group I: APC versus no endoscopic treatment: re‐bleeding p = 0.412, mortality p = 0.669; Group II: APC versus no endoscopic treatment: re‐bleeding p = 0.505, mortality p = 0.580). Hematemesis and site of bleeding located at the esophagus or duodenum were associated with a higher 30‐day mortality. Conclusions Endoscopic hemostasis of UGITB with APC has no significant impact on 30‐day re‐bleeding and mortality rates, irrespective of patient performance status.