4.4 Article

TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 323-329

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12481

Keywords

endoscopic hemostasis; hemorrhage; peptic ulcer; TC-325

Funding

  1. National University of Singapore Master of Clinical Investigation Student Research Project Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary studies on a new topical hemostatic agent, TC-325, have shown its safety and effectiveness in treating active upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, to date there have been no randomized trials comparing TC-325 with the conventional combined technique (CCT). Our pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TC-325 with those of CCT in treating peptic ulcers with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata. METHODS: This was a comparative randomized study of patients with upper GI bleeding who had Forrest class I, IIA or IIB ulcers. RESULTS: Altogether 20 patients with a mean age of 70 years (range 23-87 years) were recruited, including 16 men, with a mean hemoglobin of 97 g/L. Initial hemostasis was successful in 19 (95.0%) patients, including 90.0% (9/10) in the TC-325 group and 100% (10/10) in the CCT group. TC-325 monotherapy failed to stop bleeding in a patient with Forrest IB posterior duodenal wall ulcer. Rebleeding was seen in 33.3% (3/9) of the patients in the TC-325 group and 10.0% (1/10) in the CCT group. One patient required angio-embolization therapy while three had successful conventional endotherapy. Two patients from the TC-325 group had serious adverse events that were not procedure-or therapy-related. In patients with Forrest IIA or IIB ulcers, five received TC-325 monotherapy; none had rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study showed that TC-325 has a tendency towards a higher rebleeding rate than CCT, when treating actively bleeding ulcers. Larger trials are necessary for definitive results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available