Role of second look endoscopy in endoscopic submucosal dissection and peptic ulcer bleeding: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND Second-look endoscopy (SLE) to prevent recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and those undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely being performed. Conflicting evidence exists regarding efficacy, risk, benefit, and cost-effectiveness. AIM To identify the role and effectiveness of SLE in ESD and PUD, associated rebleeding and PUD-related outcomes like mortality, hospital length of stay, need for endoscopic or surgical intervention and blood transfusions. METHODS A systematic review of literature databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted from inception to January 5, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that compared patients with SLE to those who did not have SLE or evaluated the role of prophylactic hemostasis during SLE compared to other conservative interventions were included. The study was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023427555:). RevMan was used to perform meta-analysis, and Mantel-Haenszel Odds ratio (OR) were generated using random effect models. RESULTS A total of twelve studies with 2687 patients were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, of which 1074 patients underwent SLE after ESD and 1613 patients underwent SLE after PUD-related bleeding. In ESD, the rates of rebleeding were 7% in the SLE group compared to 4.4% in the non-SLE group with OR 1.65, 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 0.96 to 2.85; P = 0.07, whereas it was 11% in the SLE group compared to 13% in the non-SLE group with OR 0.8 95%CI: 0.50 to 1.29; P = 0.36. The mean difference in the blood transfusion rates in the SLE and no SLE group in PUD was OR 0.01, 95%CI: -0.22 to 0.25; P = 0.91. In SLE vs non-SLE groups with PUD, the OR for Endoscopic intervention was 0.29, 95%CI: 0.08 to 1.00; P = 0.05 while it was OR 2.03, 95%CI: 0.95 to 4.33; P = 0.07, for surgical intervention. The mean difference in the hospital length of stay was -3.57 d between the SLE and no SLE groups in PUD with 95%CI: -7.84 to 0.69; P = 0.10, denoting an average of approximately 3 fewer days of hospital stay among patients with PUD who underwent SLE. For mortality between SLE and non-SLE groups in PUD, the OR was 0.88, 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.72; P = 0.70. CONCLUSION SLE does not confer any benefit in preventing ESD and PUD-associated rebleeding. SLE also does not provide any significant improvement in mortality, need for interventions, or blood transfusions in PUD patients. SLE decreases the hospital length of stay on average by 3.5 d in PUD patients.