4.7 Article

Erythromycin infusion prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 1211-1215

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00582.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/AIM: Presence of clots in the stomach makes emergency endoscopy difficult in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We investigated whether the association of erythromycin infusion to gastric lavage could improve stomach cleansing before endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients admitted for upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomly assigned to receive either gastric lavage plus intravenous erythromycin (250 mg) or gastric lavage plus placebo before endoscopy in a double-blind study. The primary end point was the efficacy of intravenous erythromycin to improve stomach cleansing before endoscopy, assessed by both subjective and objective criteria. RESULTS: Characteristics of patients at admission were similar in both groups. Sixty-six patients had portal hypertension. The gastric mucosa was entirely visualized by the endoscopist in 65% of patients in the erythromycin group, versus 44% in the placebo group (p < 0.05). The quality of examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract, assessed by using a 10-cm visual analog scale, was better in the erythromycin group (4.2 +/- 2 vs. 3.3 +/- 2.2, p < 0.05). Clots were found in the stomach in 30% of patients in the erythromycin group, versus 52% in the placebo group (p < 0.05). However, ability to identify the source of bleeding, mean duration of endoscopy, and need for a second-look endoscopy, did not differ between the two groups. Similar results were observed in the subgroup of cirrhotic patients. Erythromycin was well tolerated by all patients. CONCLUSION: Intravenous erythromycin before endoscopy improves stomach cleansing and quality of endoscopic examination in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but the clinical benefit is limited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据