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

Hwai Jeng Lin, Yu Hsi Hsieh, Guan Ying Tseng, Chin Lin Perng, Full Young Chang, Shou Dong Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number5978
Pages (from-to)2250-2254
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume97
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Electrocoagulation
Peptic Ulcer
Hemorrhage
Hemostatics
Hemostasis
Endoscopic Hemostasis
Therapeutic Uses
Blood Volume
Length of Stay

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding. / Lin, Hwai Jeng; Hsieh, Yu Hsi; Tseng, Guan Ying; Perng, Chin Lin; Chang, Full Young; Lee, Shou Dong.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 97, No. 9, 5978, 2002, p. 2250-2254.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lin, Hwai Jeng ; Hsieh, Yu Hsi ; Tseng, Guan Ying ; Perng, Chin Lin ; Chang, Full Young ; Lee, Shou Dong. / A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2002 ; Vol. 97, No. 9. pp. 2250-2254.
@article{d696fbb66d754337b3642bef64d68b98,
title = "A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Lin, {Hwai Jeng} and Hsieh, {Yu Hsi} and Tseng, {Guan Ying} and Perng, {Chin Lin} and Chang, {Full Young} and Lee, {Shou Dong}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9270(02)04335-6",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "2250--2254",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip versus heater probe thermocoagulation for peptic ulcer bleeding

AU - Lin, Hwai Jeng

AU - Hsieh, Yu Hsi

AU - Tseng, Guan Ying

AU - Perng, Chin Lin

AU - Chang, Full Young

AU - Lee, Shou Dong

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018969192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018969192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9270(02)04335-6

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9270(02)04335-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 12358241

AN - SCOPUS:0036732699

VL - 97

SP - 2250

EP - 2254

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 9

M1 - 5978

ER -