Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding

A randomized, comparative trial

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection. Goals: To compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine. Study: Between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder. Results: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15%] of 26 vs. 14 [56%] of 25, p = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7%] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3%] of 24, p = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups. Conclusion: Fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)218-221
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fibrin Tissue Adhesive
Peptic Ulcer
Epinephrine
Hemorrhage
Injections
Hemostatics
Hemostasis
Fibrin
Blood Transfusion
Length of Stay
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Epinephrine
  • Fibrin
  • Hemorrhage
  • Hemostasis
  • Peptic ulcer
  • Rebleeding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding : A randomized, comparative trial. / Lin, Hwai Jeng; Hsieh, Yu Hsi; Tseng, Guan Ying; Perng, Chin Lin; Chang, Full Young; Lee, Shou Dong.

In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, Vol. 35, No. 3, 09.2002, p. 218-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lin, Hwai Jeng ; Hsieh, Yu Hsi ; Tseng, Guan Ying ; Perng, Chin Lin ; Chang, Full Young ; Lee, Shou Dong. / Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding : A randomized, comparative trial. In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2002 ; Vol. 35, No. 3. pp. 218-221.
@article{341c80b713c94c9db451fdaf0691cda0,
title = "Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding: A randomized, comparative trial",
abstract = "Background: Endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection. Goals: To compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine. Study: Between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder. Results: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15{\%}] of 26 vs. 14 [56{\%}] of 25, p = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7{\%}] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3{\%}] of 24, p = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups. Conclusion: Fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.",
keywords = "Epinephrine, Fibrin, Hemorrhage, Hemostasis, Peptic ulcer, Rebleeding",
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",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/00004836-200209000-00004",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "218--221",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology",
issn = "0192-0790",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine for arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding

T2 - A randomized, comparative trial

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 - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - Background: Endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection. Goals: To compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine. Study: Between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder. Results: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15%] of 26 vs. 14 [56%] of 25, p = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7%] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3%] of 24, p = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups. Conclusion: Fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.

AB - Background: Endoscopic epinephrine and fibrin injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer are reported to be safe, effective, and easy to use. However, a wide range of rebleeding rates has been reported with epinephrine injection. Goals: To compare the hemostatic effects of endoscopic injection with fibrin sealant versus epinephrine. Study: Between December 1998 and July 2000, 51 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels entered this trial. The clinical parameters were comparable between both groups. In the epinephrine group, we injected 5 to 10 mL of 1:10,000 epinephrine, surrounding the bleeder. In the fibrin sealant group, we injected fibrin sealant 4 mL, surrounding the bleeder. Results: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all enrolled patients. Rebleeding was more in the epinephrine group than in the fibrin sealant group (4 [15%] of 26 vs. 14 [56%] of 25, p = 0.003 on the intention-to-treat basis, and 4 [16.7%] of 24 vs. 14 [58.3%] of 24, p = 0.003 on the per protocol basis, respectively). Volume of blood transfusion, number of surgeries, hospital stay, and number of deaths were similar between both groups. Conclusion: Fibrin sealant injection is more effective in preventing rebleeding than epinephrine after endoscopic therapy, but this study showed no difference in outcomes with either therapy.

KW - Epinephrine

KW - Fibrin

KW - Hemorrhage

KW - Hemostasis

KW - Peptic ulcer

KW - Rebleeding

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036720612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036720612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004836-200209000-00004

DO - 10.1097/00004836-200209000-00004

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 218

EP - 221

JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

SN - 0192-0790

IS - 3

ER -