Chau Chun Han, Siu Wing Tai, Law Bonita Ka Bo, Tang Chung Ngai, Kwok Shek Yuen, Luk Yiu Wing, Lao Wai Cheung, Li Michael Ka Wah
Combined Endoscopy Unit, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Apr;57(4):455-61. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)80008-1.
Epinephrine injection with heat probe coagulation is an effective treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Few studies have investigated the efficacy of dual therapy with epinephrine injection plus either heat probe or argon plasma coagulation for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers. This study compared epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation to epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation for the treatment of high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.
The study design was prospective, randomized, and controlled. Patients with actively bleeding peptic ulcers, ulcers with adherent clots, or ulcers with nonbleeding visible vessels were randomly assigned to epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation or epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation. Patients with previous gastric surgery, malignant ulcers, and unidentifiable ulcers because of torrential bleeding were excluded. The primary outcome measure was recurrence of bleeding. Secondary outcome measures were initial hemostasis, endoscopic procedure duration, number of patients requiring surgery, mortality within 30 days, and ulcer status at 8 week follow-up endoscopy.
One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled; 7 with malignant ulcers were excluded after randomization. One hundred eighty-five cases were analyzed, 97 in the heat probe group and 88 in the argon plasma coagulation group. Patient demographics and ulcer characteristics were comparable between the groups. There was no significant difference in terms of initial hemostasis (95.9% vs. 97.7%), frequency of recurrent bleeding (21.6% vs. 17.0%), requirement for emergency surgery (9.3% vs. 4.5%), mean number of units of blood transfused (2.4 vs. 1.7 units), mean hospital stay (8.2 vs. 7.0 days), and hospital mortality (6.2% vs. 5.7%). Sixty (61.8%) patients in the heat probe group and 52 (52.9%) in the argon plasma coagulation group underwent endoscopy at 8 weeks. There was no significant difference between these groups in the relative frequency of nonhealing ulcer at 8 weeks.
Epinephrine injection plus argon plasma coagulation is as safe and effective as epinephrine injection plus heat probe coagulation in the treatment of patients with high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers.
肾上腺素注射联合热探头凝固术是治疗消化性溃疡出血的有效方法。很少有研究探讨肾上腺素注射联合热探头或氩离子凝固术治疗高危出血性消化性溃疡的疗效。本研究比较了肾上腺素注射联合热探头凝固术与肾上腺素注射联合氩离子凝固术治疗高危出血性消化性溃疡的效果。
本研究设计为前瞻性、随机对照试验。将活动性出血的消化性溃疡、有附着血凝块的溃疡或有非出血可见血管的溃疡患者随机分为肾上腺素注射联合热探头凝固术组或肾上腺素注射联合氩离子凝固术组。排除既往有胃手术史、恶性溃疡以及因大出血无法明确诊断的溃疡患者。主要观察指标为出血复发情况。次要观察指标包括初始止血情况、内镜操作时间、需要手术治疗的患者数量、30天内死亡率以及8周随访内镜检查时的溃疡状态。
共纳入192例患者;随机分组后排除7例恶性溃疡患者。对185例患者进行分析,热探头组97例,氩离子凝固术组88例。两组患者的人口统计学特征和溃疡特点具有可比性。在初始止血(95.9%对97.7%)、出血复发频率(21.6%对17.0%)、急诊手术需求(9.3%对4.5%)、平均输血量(2.4单位对1.7单位)、平均住院时间(8.2天对7.0天)以及医院死亡率(6.2%对5.7%)方面,两组之间无显著差异。热探头组60例(61.8%)患者和氩离子凝固术组52例(52.9%)患者在8周时接受了内镜检查。两组在8周时溃疡未愈合的相对频率方面无显著差异。
在治疗高危出血性消化性溃疡患者时,肾上腺素注射联合氩离子凝固术与肾上腺素注射联合热探头凝固术一样安全有效。