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

Hwai Jeng Lin, Wen Ching Lo, Yang Chih Cheng, Chin Lin Perng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)539-543
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume102
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Peptic Ulcer
Hemorrhage
Hemostatics
Hemostasis
Omeprazole
Intravenous Infusions
Blood Transfusion
Length of Stay
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Equipment and Supplies
Mortality
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. / Lin, Hwai Jeng; Lo, Wen Ching; Cheng, Yang Chih; Perng, Chin Lin.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 102, No. 3, 03.2007, p. 539-543.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lin, Hwai Jeng ; Lo, Wen Ching ; Cheng, Yang Chih ; Perng, Chin Lin. / Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2007 ; Vol. 102, No. 3. pp. 539-543.
@article{eb3b794757c841439d007c98074bf68e,
title = "Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Lin, {Hwai Jeng} and Lo, {Wen Ching} and Cheng, {Yang Chih} and Perng, {Chin Lin}",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00962.x",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "539--543",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic hemoclip versus triclip placement in patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding

AU - Lin, Hwai Jeng

AU - Lo, Wen Ching

AU - Cheng, Yang Chih

AU - Perng, Chin Lin

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847263967&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847263967&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00962.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00962.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17100962

AN - SCOPUS:33847263967

VL - 102

SP - 539

EP - 543

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 3

ER -