埃索美拉唑标准剂量间歇给药与大剂量持续给药治疗消化性溃疡出血的效果对比

目的探讨埃索美拉唑标准剂量间歇给药与大剂量持续给药治疗消化性溃疡出血的有效性及安全性。方法选取100例消化性溃疡出血患者,随机分为观察组和对照组,每组各50例。观察组应用埃索美拉唑标准剂量间歇给药,对照组应用埃索美拉唑大剂量持续给药。比较两组患者胃内pH、止血时间、住院时间及止血后30d内再出血率等。结果两组24h胃内平均pH、胃内pH达4.0后持续时间、pH达6.0后持续时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。相较于对照组,观察组胃内pH达到4.0所需时间及pH达到6.0所需时间显著延长(P0.05)。两组止血时间及住院时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组止血后30d内再出血率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。相较于对照组,观察组医疗费用显著减少(P0.05)。结论埃索美拉唑标准剂量间歇给药与大剂量持续给药治疗消化性溃疡出血的效果相当,但前者用药剂量更小,有利于节约医疗成本。     

埃索美拉唑治疗高危老年溃疡性上消化道出血的研究

目的观察大剂量与常规剂量埃索美拉唑治疗高危老年溃疡性上消化道出血的有效性。方法以2010年6月至2013年8月在我院老年医学科住院的96例溃疡性上消化道出血的高危（Rockall评分〉5分）老年患者为研究对象,将其随机分为治疗组和对照组,2组患者均在内镜下成功的止血,2组患者的一般治疗方案相同,治疗组采用1次静滴埃索美拉唑80 mg后（30 min）,接着以8 mg/h的速度持续静脉泵入埃索美拉唑,71.5 h后改为口服埃索美拉唑40 mg（1次/d）,持续观察至第30天;对照组静滴埃索美拉唑80 mg（1次/d）,3 d后改为口服埃索美拉唑40 mg（1次/d）,持续观察至第30天,观察2组的再出血率、死亡率、平均住院日及平均住院费用。结果与对照组相比,治疗组的再出血率、死亡率、平均住院日及平均住院费用均有明显的降低（P均〈0.05）。结论对高危的老年溃疡性上消化道出血患者而言,静脉大剂量使用埃索美拉唑是有效、合理的。     

奥美拉唑联合内镜下止血夹治疗消化性溃疡并出血的疗效观察

目的探讨奥美拉唑联合内镜下止血夹治疗消化性溃疡并活动性出血的临床效果。方法收集我院消化科收治的消化性溃疡并活动性出血患者65例,随机分为两组,其中治疗组31例,对照组34例。治疗组采用内镜下止血夹联合静脉推注奥美拉唑40 mg,2次/d,治疗1周。对照组采用静脉推注奥美拉唑40 mg,2次/d,,治疗1周。治疗期间收集患者止血效果、止血时间和再出血情况方面的数据,通过统计比较这三个指标在两组间的分布差异。结果治疗组止血总有效率为96.77%,明显优于对照组的64.71%,(P0.05)。治疗组止血时间为(1.8±1.2)d,对照组止血时间为(5.5±1.4)d,与对照组相比,治疗组止血时间更短(P0.05)。患者再出血方面,治疗组有1例,占比3.23%,对照组有7例,占比20.59%,与对照组相比,治疗组患者更不容易发生再出血(P0.05)。结论通过对消化性溃疡并活动性出血的两种治疗方法比较发现,奥美拉唑联合内镜下止血夹治疗消化性溃疡效果更好。具有止血效果显著、止血时间短、再出血率低的优点。因此,临床上可广泛采用奥美拉唑联合内镜下止血夹法治疗消化性溃疡并活动性出血。     

无痛内镜下止血联合大剂量奥美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡出血的临床研究

目的探讨无痛内镜下止血联合大剂量奥美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡出血的临床疗效。方法选择在我院接受无痛内镜下止血联合奥美拉唑治疗的消化性溃疡出血患者100例为研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为大剂量奥美拉唑组(观察组)和常规剂量奥美拉唑组(对照组),比较两组患者的止血效果、胃液p H值以及不良反应。结果观察组的12 h止血率、24 h止血率、48 h止血率均明显高于对照组(χ2=68.192、7.382、8.591,P均0.05),再次出血率明显低于对照组(χ2=6.492,P0.05),止血时间明显短于对照组(t=16.998.112,P0.05);治疗后12 h、2 4h、48 h时,观察组的空腹胃液p H值均明显高于对照组(t=6.482、7.182、6.914,P均0.05);两组患者不良反应比较差异无统计学意义(8.0%vs 6.0%)(χ2=0.154,P0.05)。结论无痛内镜下止血联合大剂量奥美拉唑治疗能够改善止血效果、缩短止血时间、抑制胃酸分泌且不会增加不良反应的发生,是治疗消化性溃疡出血的理想方法。     

埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病临床疗效分析

目的探讨埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年胃食管反流病(gastroesophageal reflux disease,GERD)的临床疗效。方法选取100例GERD患者作为研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,每组50例。对照组患者给予埃索美拉唑治疗,观察组患者给予埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗,两组患者均连续治疗4周。比较两组患者症状总评分、内镜评分、症状疗效及内镜检查疗效。结果治疗后,观察组患者症状总评分、内镜评分均显著低于对照组(P0.05);观察组患者症状疗效及内镜检查疗效均显著高于对照组(P0.05)。结论埃索美拉唑联合莫沙必利治疗老年GERD患者,可有效改善临床症状,提高临床疗效,治疗效果优于单纯使用莫沙必利治疗。     

致康胶囊联合质子泵抑制剂治疗非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的临床疗效

目的探究致康胶囊联合注射用埃索美拉唑钠治疗非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的临床疗效.方法选取2015-03/2016-03淄博市第一医院收治的非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者120例,按治疗方案不同随机分组,为A组(对照组)和B组(治疗组),每组各60例.对照组注射用埃索美拉唑钠(40 mg,2次/d).B组在A组治疗上加用口服致康胶囊(3粒/次,3次/d).两组患者均治疗7 d.观察两组的临床疗效,同时比较两组临床有效率、72 h止血成功率、腹痛缓解时间及不良反应发生率.结果B组的临床总有效率和72 h止血率均比A组高(95.00%vs 83.33%,83.33%vs 71.67%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05).B组腹痛缓解时间与A组相比较缩短了,差异有统计学意义(P0.05).B组的不良发生率比A组低(8.33%vs 13.33%),差异无统计学意义(P0.05).结论致康胶囊联合注射用埃索美拉唑钠治疗非静脉曲张性上消化道出血出血其临床疗效明显,提高止血效果,减轻临床症状,不良反应较少并缩短住院时间,具有一定的应用价值,值得临床推广.     

无痛内镜下注射止血联合大剂量洛赛克治疗消化性溃疡出血的临床研究

[目的]观察无痛内镜下注射止血联合大剂量洛赛克治疗消化性溃疡出血的临床效果。[方法]选择诊断为消化性溃疡出血患者90例,随机分为大剂量洛赛克治疗组(A组)、无痛内镜止血联合常规剂量洛赛克治疗组(B组)、无痛内镜止血联合大剂量洛赛克治疗组(C组),每组30例。A组患者用洛赛克40mg静脉推注,每日3次,连续5d;B组患者于内镜检查前先用洛赛克40mg静脉推注,于异丙酚镇静下行内镜检查出血点,注射1/10 000肾上腺素止血,内镜止血后继续用洛赛克40mg静脉推注,每日2次,连续5d;C组患者除内镜止血后静脉推注洛赛克40mg,每日2次改为每日3次外,其余同B组。[结果]与A组比较,B、C组的止血时间缩短、再出血率下降、手术率及住院时间降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);与B组比较,C组的止血时间缩短、再出血率下降、手术率及住院时间降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]无痛内镜下注射止血联合大剂量洛赛克治疗消化性溃疡出血安全有效,符合基层医院的条件,也符合患者舒适化医疗的需求,值得在基层医院推广。     

内镜下金属钛夹联合注射肾上腺素对消化性溃疡出血患者血清炎性因子及治疗效果的影响

目的探讨内镜下金属钛夹联合注射肾上腺素对消化性溃疡患者血清炎性因子及治疗效果的影响.方法选择2015-01/2016-12浙江省台州市肿瘤医院收治的消化道出血患者132例为研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各66例.对照组给予金属钛夹治疗,观察组给予金属钛夹联合注射肾上腺素治疗,比较两组治疗相关指标、血清炎性因子、不良反应、临床疗效等.结果观察组有效率明显高于对照组(98.48%vs 89.39%,χ~2=4.790,P0.05);止血时间、治疗出血量、输血量、住院时间明显低于对照组(t=6.842,5.384,6.772,9.407,P0.05,P0.01);血清白介素-6(interleukin-6,IL-6)、c-反应蛋白含量明显低于对照组,IL-10含量明显高于对照组(t=7.545,6.071,8.919,P0.05,P0.01);穿孔、感染、再出血发生率明显低于对照组(3.03%vs 12.12%,6.06%vs18.18%,1.52%vs 10.61%,χ~2=3.895,4.552,4.790,P0.05).结论内镜下金属钛夹联合注射肾上腺素有助于提高消化性溃疡出血患者临床疗效,降低不良反应,可能与缓解患者炎症状态等因素有关.     

内镜止血联合不同剂量质子泵抑制剂治疗老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的比较

目的:比较研究内镜止血联合不同剂量质子泵抑制剂治疗老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的临床效果,为以后临床治疗提供参考依据.方法:选取2009-01/2014-12 206例内镜止血治疗的老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者为研究对象,治疗中依据不同剂量质子泵抑制剂含量分为观察组与对照组,均103例.对照组患者治疗中应用常规剂量质子泵抑制剂,观察组患者治疗中给予大剂量质子泵抑制剂.对比两组患者呕血、黑便持续时间、平均住院时间及输血量与再次出血的基本情况,观察其临床疗效.结果:(1)症状持续时间:观察组呕血、黑便持续时间、平均住院时间及输血量均少于对照组(1.12 d±0.38 d vs 3.47 d±0.53 d,3.22d±0.46 d vs 5.35 d±1.11 d,7.17 d±1.32 d vs 10.57 d±1.79 d,440.30 mL±86.65 mL vs764.50 mL±125.36 mL)(P0.05);(2)止血情况:观察组止血时间、止血后再次出血、转开腹手术率低于对照组(1.62 h±0.69 h vs3.49 h±1.03 h,3.88%vs 13.59%,0.97%vs5.83%)(P0.05).结论:临床中对于内镜治疗急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者应用大剂量质子泵抑制剂可以更好的缩短患者的呕血、黑便持续时间,并且减少患者住院的时间.同时,对降低再出血也有明显的优势,值得临床中应用与推广.     

质子泵抑制剂预防非甾体类抗炎药相关性溃疡复发的荟萃分析

目的 评价质子泵抑制剂(PPI)预防非甾体类抗炎药(NSAID)相关性溃疡复发的临床疗效和安全性.方法 检索中国生物医学文献数据库、Medline等,纳入PPI预防NSAID相关性溃疡复发的所有临床随机对照试验.采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 4.2软件进行荟萃分析.结果 10项随机临床试验共3361例患者纳入研究.荟萃分析结果显示,PPI显著降低NSAID相关性溃疡的复发率(8.7%),与对照组比较差异有统计学意义(17.2%,P=0.03).其中,接受埃索美拉唑治疗和兰索拉唑治疗的患者溃疡复发率明显减低(4.4%和18.0%),与对照组比较差异均有统计学意义(14.7%和28.7%,P值分别为0.01和0.05),而奥美拉唑组与对照组相比并无明显优势(P=0.16).不同剂量PPI比较,埃索美拉唑20 mg/d、40 mg/d和兰索拉唑15 mg/d组NSAID溃疡的复发率分别为4.4%、4.3%和19.7%.将NSAID分层分析发现,PPI可有效预防非选择性NSAID溃疡的复发(P=0.009),但对选择性环氧合酶-2抑制剂无明显优势(P=0.58).未发现PPI治疗组和对照组发生明显的药物不良反应.结论 以埃索美拉唑为主的PPI在不停用NSAID的情况下,能有效预防已经发生的NSAID相关性溃疡的复发,疗效可靠、耐受性好.     

Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors Are as Effective as Endoscopic Treatment for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer: A Prospective,Randomized, Controlled Trial

In managing patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, it has been reported that pharmacologic treatment can be an alternative to endoscopic treatment. We compared the hemostasis rates of the endoscopic treatment, hemoclipping, and the phamacologic treatment, oral proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), in bleeding peptic ulcer. A randomized prospective study was performed on 129 bleeding peptic ulcer patients with hematemesis or melena. Sixty-two patients were treated by endoscopic hemoclipping and subsequently H₂ receptor antagonists were injected intravenously (hemoclipping group), and 67 patients were treated with an oral PPI without endoscopic treatment (PPI group). The 24-hr gastric pH test was performed sequentially following the treatment. The initial hemostasis rate of the hemoclipping group was 93.5% (58/62) and the rebleeding rate was 6.9% (4/58), and the hemostasis rate of the PPI group was 92.5% (62/67) and the rebleeding rate was 7.5% (5/67), which were not different. The 24-hr gastric pH was 4.54 ± 2.56 in the hemoclipping group and 5.97 ± 1.30 in the PPI group (P < 0.037). In the bleeding peptic ulcer patients, the hemostasis rate with the oral administration of PPIs was not different from that with the endoscopic hemoclipping treatment.     

Efficacy of endoscopic clipping for actively bleeding peptic ulcer: comparison with polidocanol injection therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of hemostatic clips is conceptually attractive for achieving definitive hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding. There are only a few clinical trials comparing clipping with other endoscopic hemostatic methods. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic clipping with that of injection of polidocanol for hemostasis from actively (spurting or oozing) bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODOLOGY: 61 patients with active (spurting or oozing) bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers were randomly assigned to one of two endoscopic treatments: injection therapy with polidocanol 1% (injected in 0.5-1.0 mL increments at three to five sites around the bleeding vessel to a total of 5 mL) (n=30), or endoscopic clipping using a clipping device and clips (n=31). All patients from the polidocanol group and 22 (68.8%) patients from the clipping group received pretreatment with epinephrine. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, amounts of blood transfusion, and durations of hospital stay were analyzed. RESULTS: The initial hemostatic rate was 96.8% in the clipping group, and 96.7% in the polidocanol group, respectively. Mean transfusion requirements, mean number of hospital days and percentage needing surgery were comparable in both groups. Recurrent bleeding rates were higher, although not statistically significant in the polidocanol group than in the clipping group (13.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that injection therapy with polidocanol and endoscopic hemoclips seems to be equivalent for actively (spurting and oozing) bleeding peptic ulcer.     

Endoscopic Injection of Absolute Ethanol Achieves Ultimate Hemostasis in Bleeding Caused by Peptic Ulcers

Abstract: This study was performed to assess the efficacy of endoscopic injection therapy with absolute ethanol to prevent emergency surgery and recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcers. We compared two different treatment protocols of peptic ulcers with active bleeding or with visible vessels on the ulcer bed. In group I (1981–1984, control group), 45 patients underwent emergency endoscopy with spraying 0.1% epinephrine and thrombin, but no other endoscopic hemostatic procedure. In group II (1989–1992, experimental group), we performed endoscopic injection therapy with absolute ethanol for peptic ulcers in 46 patients. The background characteristics of the patients were not different in the two groups. The rate of successful initial hemostasis tended to be greater in the ethanol injection group compared with the control group without significance. The ultimate hemostatic rate in the ethanol injection group was markedly and significantly greater compared to the control group (P<0.05). Ultimate hemostasis by ethanol injection was performed effectively in peptic ulcers with spurting and oozing hemorrhage and in the non-bleeding peptic ulcers with visible vessels at the initial endoscopy (P<0.05 for each). These results indicate that ethanol injection therapy by endoscopy achieves ultimate hemostasis and prevents emergency surgery due to hemorrhage from peptic ulcers. (Dig Endoc 1994; 6 : 34–38)     

Role of proton pump inhibitors in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding

Peptic ulcer bleeding is a serious medical problem with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy significantly reduces further bleeding, surgery and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and is now recommended as the first hemostatic modality for these patients. The efficacy of large-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in reducing re-bleeding after endoscopic therapy has been supported by evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. It may be premature to recommend small-dose intravenous injection PPI after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding ulcers. An updated systematic review shows that PPI therapy before endoscopy significantly reduces the proportion with major stigmata and requirement for endoscopic therapy at index endoscopy. Some studies show that there is no significant difference between oral and intravenous PPIs in raising intragastric pH. However, clinical data is lacking in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding to date.     

Role of intravenous omeprazole in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection: a prospective randomized comparative trial

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine injection is the most common endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding. Controversy exists concerning the optimal dose of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal dose of PPI after successful endoscopic epinephrine injection in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: A total of 200 peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels (NBVV) who had obtained initial hemostasis with endoscopic injection of epinephrine were randomized to receive omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 6 h, omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 12 h or cimetidine (CIM) 400 mg infusion every 12 h. Outcomes were checked at 14 days after enrollment. RESULTS: Rebleeding episodes were fewer in the group with omeprazole 40 mg infusion every 6 h (6/67, 9%) as compared with that of the CIM infusion group (22/67, 32.8%, p < 0.01). The volume of blood transfusion was less in the group with omeprazole 40 mg every 6 h than in those groups with omepraole 40 mg infusion every 12 h (p= 0.001) and CIM 400 mg infusion every 12 h (p < 0.001). The hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent operation, and death rate were not statistically different among the three groups. CONCLUSION: A combination of endoscopic epinephrine injection and a large dose of omeprazole infusion is superior to combined endoscopic epinephrine injection with CIM infusion for preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers with active bleeding or NBVV.     

Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND: Hemoclip placement is an effective endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding. Triclip is a novel clipping device with three prongs over the distal end. So far, there is no clinical study concerning the hemostatic effect of triclip placement. AIM: To determine the hemostatic effect of the triclip as compared with that of the hemoclip. METHODS: A total of 100 peptic ulcer patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels received endoscopic therapy with either hemoclip (N = 50) or triclip placement (N = 50). After obtaining initial hemostasis, they received omeprazole 40 mg intravenous infusion every 12 h for 3 days. The main outcome assessment was hemostatic rate and rebleeding rate at 14 days. RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was obtained in 47 patients (94%) of the hemoclip group and in 38 patients (76%) of the triclip group (P= 0.011). Rebleeding episodes, volume of blood transfusion, the hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent operation, and mortality were not statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Hemoclip is superior to triclip in obtaining primary hemostasis in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. In bleeders located over difficult-to-approach sites, hemoclip is more ideal than triclip.     

A prospective,randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic heater probe thermocoagulation and hemoclip are considered to be safe and very effective in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer. So far, there are only few reports concerning hemostasis with endoscopic hemoclip. The aims of this study were to compare the hemostatic effects of both therapeutic modalities in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: A total of 80 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were randomized to receive endoscopic hemoclip (n = 40) or heater probe thermocoagulation (n = 40). RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was achieved in 34 patients (85%) in the hemoclip group and 40 patients (100%) in the heater probe group (p = 0.01277). Rebleeding occurred in three patients (8.8%) in the hemoclip group and two patients (5%) in the heater probe group (p > 0.1). Among patients with difficult-to-approach bleeding, we obtained a better hemostatic rate in the heater probe group (nine of 11 patients vs three of 10, p = 0.02417). The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery, and the mortality rate were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, heater probe thermocoagulation offers an advantage in achieving hemostasis than hemoclip. In difficult-to-approach bleeders, heater probe is a more suitable therapeutic modality.     

Gastric acid inhibition in the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease is a common clinical event, resulting in considerable patient morbidity and significant health care costs. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion is a key component in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and surgery. Raising intragastric pH promotes clot stability and reduces the influences of gastric acid and pepsin. Patients with high-risk stigmata for ulcer bleeding (arterial bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, and adherent clots) benefit significantly from and should receive high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after successful endoscopic hemostasis. For patients with low-risk stigmata (flat spots or clean ulcer base), oral PPI therapy alone is sufficient. For oozing bleeding (an intermediate risk finding), successful endoscopic hemostasis and oral PPI are recommended. Using intravenous PPIs before endoscopy appears to reduce the frequency of finding high-risk stigmata on later endoscopy, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. High-dose oral PPIs may be as effective as intravenous infusion in achieving positive clinical outcomes, but this has not been documented by randomized studies and its cost-effectiveness is unclear.     

Endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcer using a hemostatic clip or pure ethanol injection

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. METHODOLOGY: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

A prospective, randomized trial comparing mechanical methods of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection to epinephrine injection alone for bleeding peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: The hemostatic efficacy of mechanical methods of hemostasis, together with epinephrine injection, was compared with that of epinephrine injection alone in bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Ninety patients with a peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to undergo a mechanical method of hemostasis (23 hemoclip application, 22 band ligation) plus epinephrine injection, or epinephrine injection alone. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 44/45 (97.8%) patients in both groups. The mean number of hemoclips and elastic bands applied were 2.8: 95% CI[2.5, 3.1] and 1.1: 95% CI[1.0, 1.2], respectively, and the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.9 mL: 95% CI[19.3 mL, 20.5 mL]. The rate of recurrent bleeding in the combination group (2/44, 4.5%) was significantly lower in comparison with the injection group (9/44, 20.5%, p < 0.05). The mean number of therapeutic endoscopic sessions needed to achieve permanent hemostasis in the combination group (1.04: 95% CI[1.01, 1.07]) was significantly lower vs. the injection group (1.22: 95% CI[1.15, 1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of an endoscopic mechanical method of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection is more effective than epinephrine injection alone for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.