OBJECTIVES: No North American randomized study has compared ulcer rebleeding rates after endoscopic hemostasis in high-risk patients treated with high-dose intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or IV histamine-2 receptor antagonists. Our hypothesis was that ulcer rebleeding with IV pantoprazole (PAN) would be lower than with IV ranitidine (RAN). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, U.S. study. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and major stigmata of hemorrhage had endoscopic hemostasis with thermal probes with or withoutepinephrine injection, then were randomly assigned to IV PAN 80 mg plus 8 mg/h or IV RAN 50 mg plus 6.25 mg/h for 72 h, and subsequently had an oral PPI (1/day). Patients with signs of rebleeding had repeat endoscopy. Rebleeding rates up to 30 days were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of slow enrollment (total N = 149, PAN 72, RAN 77). Demographics, APACHE II scores, ulcer type/location, stigmata, and hemostasis used were similar. The 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.9% (5 of 72 patients) with PAN and 14.3% (11 of 77) for RAN (p= 0.19). Rebleeds occurred within 72 h in 56% and between 4 and 7 days in 44% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 4%. Nonbleeding severe adverse events were more common in the RAN than in the PAN group (14 [18.1%]vs 7 [9.7%], p= 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small sample size of this study, there was an arithmetic but not significant difference in ulcer rebleeding rates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: No North American randomized study has compared ulcer rebleeding rates after endoscopic hemostasis in high-risk patients treated with high-dose intravenous (IV) proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or IV histamine-2 receptor antagonists. Our hypothesis was that ulcer rebleeding with IV pantoprazole (PAN) would be lower than with IV ranitidine (RAN). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, U.S. study. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and major stigmata of hemorrhage had endoscopic hemostasis with thermal probes with or without epinephrine injection, then were randomly assigned to IV PAN 80 mg plus 8 mg/h or IV RAN 50 mg plus 6.25 mg/h for 72 h, and subsequently had an oral PPI (1/day). Patients with signs of rebleeding had repeat endoscopy. Rebleeding rates up to 30 days were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of slow enrollment (total N = 149, PAN 72, RAN 77). Demographics, APACHE II scores, ulcer type/location, stigmata, and hemostasis used were similar. The 7- and 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.9% (5 of 72 patients) with PAN and 14.3% (11 of 77) for RAN (p= 0.19). Rebleeds occurred within 72 h in 56% and between 4 and 7 days in 44% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 4%. Nonbleeding severe adverse events were more common in the RAN than in the PAN group (14 [18.1%]vs 7 [9.7%], p= 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small sample size of this study, there was an arithmetic but not significant difference in ulcer rebleeding rates.
Authors: Justin Cheung; Grant Sawisky; Robert Enns; Michael F Byrne; Qiaohao Zhu; Clarence K W Wong Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.522