Peptic ulcer bleeding: comparison of two hemostatic procedures
Objective:Bleeding is a serious complication of peptic ulcer. Endoscopic injection therapy is accepted as a homeostatic endoscopic treatment in acute nonvariceal of upper GI hemorrhages, particularly in bleeding peptic ulcers. The risk of rebleeding is predicted by the endoscopic appearance of ulcer features classified according to Forrest's criteria.METHODS:Two hundred twenty-three patients were selected from 1,003 emergency upper endoscopies for GI bleeding. According to Forrest's criteria, 99 well-matched patients with ulcers F1 and F2 were considered at risk of rebleeding; 54 patients (group A) received local ulcer injection of epinephrine solution 1:10,000, whereas (group B) patients were treated with local epinephrine injection and then with endoscopic Hemoclips.1 We considered the control of bleeding, the number of rebleeding episodes, the need for emergency surgery, and mortality.RESULTS:Bleeding ulcers stopped completely in 83.3% group A patients, and in 95.6% group B patients (p = not significant). In a subset of F1b patients the rebleeding rate was 31% for group A and 0% for group B (p < 0.05). There was no mortality as a result of the procedure. There was a trend toward reducing surgery in favor of the combined therapy (0% vs 7.4%). No differences were found in transfusion requirements or mean hospitalization days.CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that endoscopic injection of 1:10,000 epinephrine solution alone and epinephrine solution plus application of Hemoclips are equivalent therapies in treating bleeding and rebleeding from peptic ulcers. There was no difference between therapies in terms of need for surgery or mortality. Possibly combination therapy is more effective in treating ulcers that are actively oozing.