Epinephrine injection therapy versus a combination of epinepnrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding ulcers

AIM: To assess the efficacy of hemoclip application in combination with epinephrine injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers and to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with such a combination therapy and those treated with epinephrine injection alone. METHODS: A total of 293 patients (211 males, 82 females) underwent endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Of these, 202 patients (152 males, 50 females) received epinephrine injection therapy while 91 patients (59 males, 32 females) received combination therapy. The choice of endoscopic therapy was made by the endoscopist. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, need for emergency surgery and 30-d mortality were the outcome measures studied. RESULTS: Patients who received combination therapy were significantly older (mean age 66±16 years, range 24-90 years) and more suffered from chronic renal failure compared to those who received epinephrine injection therapy alone (mean age 61±17 years, range 21-89 years). Failure to achieve permanent hemostasis was 4% in the group who received epinephrine injection alone and 11% in the group who received combination therapy. When the differences in age and renal function between the two treatment groups were taken into account by multivariate analysis, the rates of initial hemostasis, rebleeding rates, need for surgery and 30-d mortality for both treatment options were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of epinephrine injection with endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective method of achieving hemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcer diseases. However, superiority of combination therapy over epinephrine injection alone, could not be demonstrated.

Epinephrine injection therapy versus a combination of epinepnrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding ulcers