Ovid Application Error
Endoscopic Injection With Fibrin Sealant Versus Epinephrine for Arrest of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Randomized, Comparative Trial.
Lin, Hwai-Jeng M.D., F.A.C.G.; Hsieh, Yu-Hsi M.D.; Tseng, Guan-Ying M.D.; Perng, Chin-Lin M.D.; Chang, Full-Young M.D.; Lee, Shou-Dong M.D., F.A.C.G.
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
35(3):218-221, September 2002.
(Format: HTML, PDF)
Background: Endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection.
Goals: To compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine.
Study: Between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder.
Results: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15%] of 26 vs. 14 [56%] of 25, p = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7%] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3%] of 24, p = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups.
Conclusion: Fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.
(C) 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.