Nishiaki M, Tada M, Yanai H, Tokiyama H, Nakamura H, Okita K
First Department of Internal Medicine, Yamaguchi University School of Medicine, Ube, Japan.
Hepatogastroenterology. 2000 Jul-Aug;47(34):1042-4.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic hemostasis is frequently chosen as the treatment of first choice for bleeding peptic ulcers. We retrospectively compared the hemostatic effects of hemoclips and endoscopic ethanol injection in patients with bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers.
The subjects were 149 patients with 156 bleeding peptic ulcer lesions who were treated by endoscopic hemostasis, comprising 127 gastric ulcers and 29 duodenal ulcers. Hemoclips were used for 68 lesions (hemoclip group) and ethanol injection was done for 88 lesions (ethanol group).
The hemostasis rates were 98.5% for the hemoclip group and 92.0% for the ethanol group. There was no significant difference in hemostatic effect between these two methods. All patients with unsuccessful hemostasis had a visible vessel larger than 2.0 mm in diameter and/or concomitant disease.
The results suggest that these two endoscopic hemostatic methods are both highly effective. The presence of a large visible vessel may be predictive of unsuccessful hemostasis.
背景/目的:内镜止血常被选为消化性溃疡出血的首选治疗方法。我们回顾性比较了胃和十二指肠溃疡出血患者使用止血夹和内镜下乙醇注射的止血效果。
研究对象为149例患有156个消化性溃疡出血病灶并接受内镜止血治疗的患者,其中包括127例胃溃疡和29例十二指肠溃疡。68个病灶使用了止血夹(止血夹组),88个病灶进行了乙醇注射(乙醇组)。
止血夹组的止血率为98.5%,乙醇组为92.0%。这两种方法的止血效果无显著差异。所有止血失败的患者均有直径大于2.0mm的可见血管和/或合并症。
结果表明这两种内镜止血方法均非常有效。存在大的可见血管可能预示止血失败。