PubMed · 13230068
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
I ABELIN. 1954. [Antithyrotoxic processes in experimental hyperthyroidism. III. ].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13230068/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The hemostatic efficacy of mechanical methods of hemostasis, together with epinephrine injection, was compared with that of epinephrine injection alone in bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Ninety patients with a peptic ulcer with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel were randomly assigned to undergo a mechanical method of hemostasis (23 hemoclip application, 22 band ligation) plus epinephrine injection, or epinephrine injection alone. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 44/45 (97.8%) patients in both groups. The mean number of hemoclips and elastic bands applied were 2.8: 95% CI[2.5, 3.1] and 1.1: 95% CI[1.0, 1.2], respectively, and the mean volume of epinephrine injected was 19.9 mL: 95% CI[19.3 mL, 20.5 mL]. The rate of recurrent bleeding in the combination group (2/44, 4.5%) was significantly lower in comparison with the injection group (9/44, 20.5%, p < 0.05). The mean number of therapeutic endoscopic sessions needed to achieve permanent hemostasis in the combination group (1.04: 95% CI[1.01, 1.07]) was significantly lower vs. the injection group (1.22: 95% CI[1.15, 1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of an endoscopic mechanical method of hemostasis plus epinephrine injection is more effective than epinephrine injection alone for the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection. METHODS: An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed. CONCLUSIONS: Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.