4.7 Article

High- Versus Low-Dose Proton Pump Inhibitors After Endoscopic Hemostasis in Patients With Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Multicentre, Randomized Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 12, Pages 3011-3018

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.02149.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The most effective schedule of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients with actively bleeding ulcers and those with nonbleeding visible vessel or adherent clot were treated with epinephrine injection and/or thermal coagulation, and randomized to receive intravenous PPIs according to an intensive regimen (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg/h as continuous infusion for 72 h) or a standard regimen (40 mg bolus daily followed by saline infusion for 72 h). After the infusion, all patients were given 20 mg PPI twice daily orally. The primary end point was the in-hospital rebleeding rate, as ascertained at the repeat endoscopy. RESULTS: Bleeding recurred in 28 of 238 patients (11.8%) receiving the intensive regimen, and in 19 of 236 (8.1%) patients receiving the standard regimen (P = 0.18). Most rebleeding episodes occurred during the initial 72-h infusion: 18 (7.6%) and 19 events (8.1%) in the intensive and standard groups, respectively (P = 0.32). Mean units of blood transfused were 1.7 +/- 2.1 in the intensive and 1.5 +/- 2.1 in the standard regimen group (P = 0.34). The duration of hospital stay was < 5 days for 88 (37.0%) and 111 patients (47.0%) in the intensive and standard groups (P = 0.03). There were fewer surgical interventions in the standard versus intensive regimen (1 vs 3). Five patients in each treatment group died. CONCLUSIONS: Following endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers, standard-dose PPIs infusion was as effective as a high-dose regimen in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00374101). (Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:3011-3018).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available