Saperas E, Piqué J M, Pérez-Ayuso R, Fuster F, Terés J, Bordas J M, Rodés J
Gastroenterology Service, Hospital Clinic i Provincial, University of Barcelona, Spain.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1988 Apr;2(2):153-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.1988.tb00682.x.
In a randomized double-blind trial 100 patients with severe bleeding peptic ulcers were treated with an intravenous (i.v.) infusion of cimetidine or somatostatin. Only those patients in whom endoscopy performed within 6 h of admission showed non-arterial bleeding or signs of recent haemorrhage without a visible vessel entered the trial. The two treatment groups were well matched for age, sex, presence of underlying disease, prior ingestion of ulcerogenic drugs, tobacco habits, type of bleeding, haematocrit at admission, presence of hypovolaemic shock, source of bleeding and endoscopic findings. Four patients in each group were excluded after randomization. Further haemorrhage occurred in eight (17.3%) patients in the somatostatin group and in 10 (21.7%) in the cimetidine group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The number of surgical procedures, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospitalization and mortality rates were similar in the two treatment groups. These results suggest that somatostatin does not improve the results obtained with cimetidine in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer, in whom the endoscopy discloses non-arterial bleeding or signs of recent haemorrhage without a visible vessel.
在一项随机双盲试验中,100例患有严重出血性消化性溃疡的患者接受了静脉输注西咪替丁或生长抑素的治疗。只有那些在入院后6小时内进行内镜检查显示为非动脉性出血或近期出血迹象且无可见血管的患者才进入试验。两个治疗组在年龄、性别、基础疾病的存在、既往服用致溃疡药物情况、吸烟习惯、出血类型、入院时的血细胞比容、低血容量休克的存在、出血来源和内镜检查结果方面匹配良好。随机分组后,每组各有4例患者被排除。生长抑素组有8例(17.3%)患者再次出血,西咪替丁组有10例(21.7%)患者再次出血,但差异无统计学意义。两个治疗组的手术例数、输血需求、住院时间和死亡率相似。这些结果表明,对于内镜检查显示为非动脉性出血或近期出血迹象且无可见血管的出血性消化性溃疡患者,生长抑素并不能改善使用西咪替丁所获得的治疗效果。