Comparison of adrenaline injection and bipolar electrocoagulation for the arrest of peptic ulcer bleeding

Abstract

BACKGROUNDPeptic ulcers with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel require aggressive endoscopic treatment.AIMSTo determine whether endoscopic adrenaline injection alone or contact probe therapy following injection is a suitable treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding.METHODSA total of 96 patients with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessels received adrenaline alone, bipolar electrocoagulation alone, or combined treatment (n=32 in each group).RESULTSInitial haemostasis was not achieved in one patient in the adrenaline group, two in the gold probe group, and two in the injection gold probe group (p>0.1). Rebleeding episodes were fewer in the injection gold probe group (2/30, 6.7%) than in the gold probe group (9/30, 30%, p=0.04) and in the adrenaline group (11/31, 35.5%, p=0.01). Treatment failure (other therapy required) was rarer in the injection gold probe group (4/32, 12.5%) than in the adrenaline group (12/32, 37.5%, p=0.04). The volume of blood transfused after entry of the study was less in the injection gold probe group (mean 491 ml) than in the adrenaline group (1548 ml, p<0.0001) and the gold probe group (1105 ml, p<0.01). Duration of hospital stay, numbers of patients requiring urgent surgery, and death rate were not statistically different among the three groups.CONCLUSIONSFor patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, combined adrenaline injection and gold probe treatment offers an advantage in preventing rebleeding and decreasing the need for blood transfusion.