Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers

Abstract Objective: To compare endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe for the treatment of actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Design: Randomised prospective study of patients admitted with actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Setting: One university hospital. Subjec...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ 1997-05, Vol.314 (7090), p.1307-1311
Hauptverfasser: Chung, Sydney S C, Lau, James Y W, Sung, Joseph J Y, Chan, Angus C W, Lai, C W, Ng, Enders K W, Chan, Francis K L, Yung, M Y, Li, Arthur K C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Objective: To compare endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe for the treatment of actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Design: Randomised prospective study of patients admitted with actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Setting: One university hospital. Subjects: 276 patients with actively bleeding ulcers detected by endoscopy within 24 hours of admission: 136 patients were randomised to endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and 140 to adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment. Main outcome measures: Initial endoscopic haemostasis; clinical rebleeding; requirement for operation; requirement for blood transfusion; hospital stay, ulcer healing at four weeks; and mortality in hospital. Results: Initial haemostasis was achieved in 131/134 patients (98%) who received adrenaline injection alone and 135/136 patients (99%) who received additional heat probe treatment (P = 0.33). Outcome as measured by clinical rebleeding (12 v 5), requirement for emergency operation (14 v 8), blood transfusion (2 v 3 units), hospital stay (4 v 4 days), ulcer healing at four weeks (79.1% v 74%), and in hospital mortality (7 v 8) were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of patients with spurting haemorrhage 8/27 (29.6%; 14.5% to 50.3%) patients from the adrenaline injection alone group and 2/31 (6.5%; 1.1% to 22.9%) patients from the dual treatment group required operative intervention. The relative risk of this was lower in the dual treatment group (0.17; 0.03 to 0.87). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the dual treatment group than the adrenaline injection alone group (4 v 6 days, P = 0.01). Conclusion: The addition of heat probe treatment after endoscopic adrenaline injection confers an advantage in ulcers with spurting haemorrhage. Key messages Endoscopic injection of adrenaline alone is effective in stopping bleeding peptic ulcers Further bleeding after adrenaline injection alone, however, occurs in 15-20% of patients, and the addition of heat probe thermocoagulation may improve permanent haemostasis and therefore patient outcome When compared with adrenaline injection alone the dual treatment significantly reduced the requirement for operative intervention and the length of hospital stay in the subgroup of patients with spurting ulcer haemorrhage In the endoscopic treatment of spurting ulcer haemorrhage heat probe thermocoagulation should be added after adrenaline injection
ISSN:0959-8138
0959-8146
1468-5833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.314.7090.1307