Medical therapy has similar hemostatic efficacy with endoscopic treatment for PUB patients with adherent clot (FIIb ulcers).

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no clear consensus on whether medical treatment or endoscopic treatment should be used for peptic ulcer bleeding patients with adherent clot. The aim of this study is to investigate the hemostatic effects of medical treatment, single endoscopic treatment, and combination endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients with adherent clot.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed PUB patients with adherent clot who underwent endoscopic examination or treatment in our center from March 2014 to January 2023 and received intravenous administration of proton pump inhibitors. Patients were divided into medical treatment (MT) group, single endoscopic treatment (ST) group, and combined endoscopic treatment (CT) group. Subsequently, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to calculate the rebleeding rate.

RESULTS

A total of 605 eligible patients were included in this study. After IPTW, the rebleeding rate in the MT group on days 3, 7, 14, and 30 were 13.3 (7.3), 14.2 (7.8), 14.5 (7.9), and 14.5 (7.9), respectively; the rebleeding rates in the ST group were 17.4 (5.1), 20.8 (6.1), 20.8 (6.1), and 20.8 (6.1), respectively; the rebleeding rates in the CT group were 0.4 (0.9), 1.7 (3.3), 2.3 (4.5), and 2.3 (4.5), respectively. Although the rebleeding rate in the medical treatment group was higher, there was no significant difference among the three groups on days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.132, 0.442, 0.552, and 0.552).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical therapy has similar hemostatic efficacy with endoscopic treatment for PUB patients with adherent clot (FIIb ulcers). However, for patients with more risk factors and access to well-equipped endoscopy centers, endoscopic treatment may be considered. The choice of treatment approach should be based on the individual conditions of the patient, as well as other factors such as medical resources available.