Endoclips vs large or small-volume epinephrine in peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding

AIM: To compare the recurrent bleeding after endoscopic injection of different epinephrine volumes with hemoclips in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2009, 150 patients with gastric or duodenal bleeding ulcer with major stigmata of hemorrhage and non-bleeding visible vessel in an ulcer bed (Forrest II a) were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive a small-volume epinephrine group (15 to 25 mL injection group; Group 1, 17 = 50), a large-volume epinephrine group (30 to 40 mL injection group; Group 2, n = 50) and a hemoclip group (Group 3, n = 50). The rate of recurrent bleeding, as the primary outcome, was compared between the groups of patients included in the study. Secondary outcomes compared between the groups were primary hemostasis rate, permanent hemostasis, need for emergency surgery, 30 d mortality, bleeding-related deaths, length of hospital stay and transfusion requirements. RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was obtained in all patients. The rate of early recurrent bleeding was 30% (15/50) in the small-volume epinephrine group (Group 1) and 16% (8/50) in the large-volume epinephrine group (Group 2) (P = 0.09). The rate of recurrent bleeding was 4% (2/50) in the hemoclip group (Group 3); the difference was statistically significant with regard to patients treated with either small-volume or large-volume epinephrine solution (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.045, respectively). Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter among patients treated with hemoclips than among patients treated with epinephrine whereas there were no differences in transfusion requirement or even 30 d mortality between the groups. CONCLUSION: Endoclip is superior to both small and large volume injection of epinephrine in the prevention of recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.