BACKGROUND: Controlled pantoprazole data in peptic ulcer bleeding are few. AIM: To compare intravenous (IV) pantoprazole with IV ranitidine for bleeding ulcers. METHODS: After endoscopic haemostasis, 1256 patients were randomized to pantoprazole 80 mg+8 mg/h or ranitidine 50 mg+13 mg/h, both for 72 h. Patients underwent second-look endoscopy on day 3 or earlier, if clinically indicated. The primary endpoint was an overall outcome ordinal score: no rebleeding, rebleeding without/with subsequent haemostasis, surgery and mortality. The latter three events were also assessed separately and together. RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in overall outcome scores (pantoprazole vs. ranitidine: S0: 91.2 vs. 89.3%, S1: 1.5 vs. 2.5%, S2: 5.4 vs. 5.7%, S3: 1.7 vs. 2.1%, S4: 0.19 vs. 0.38%, P = 0.083), 72-h clinically detected rebleeding (2.9% [95% CI 1.7, 4.6] vs. 3.2% [95% CI 2.0, 4.9]), surgery (1.9% [95% CI 1.0, 3.4] vs. 2.1% [95% CI 1.1, 3.5]) or day-3 mortality (0.2% [95% CI 0, 0.09] vs. 0.3% [95% CI 0, 1.1]). Pantoprazole significantly decreased cumulative frequencies of events comprising the ordinal score in spurting lesions (13.9% [95% CI 6.6, 24.7] vs. 33.9% [95% CI 22.1, 47.4]; P = 0.01) and gastric ulcers (6.7% [95% CI 4, 10.4] vs. 14.3% [95% CI 10.3, 19.2], P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes amongst pantoprazole and ranitidine-treated patients were similar; pantoprazole provided benefits in patients with arterial spurting and gastric ulcers.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Controlled pantoprazole data in peptic ulcer bleeding are few. AIM: To compare intravenous (IV) pantoprazole with IV ranitidine for bleeding ulcers. METHODS: After endoscopic haemostasis, 1256 patients were randomized to pantoprazole 80 mg+8 mg/h or ranitidine 50 mg+13 mg/h, both for 72 h. Patients underwent second-look endoscopy on day 3 or earlier, if clinically indicated. The primary endpoint was an overall outcome ordinal score: no rebleeding, rebleeding without/with subsequent haemostasis, surgery and mortality. The latter three events were also assessed separately and together. RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in overall outcome scores (pantoprazole vs. ranitidine: S0: 91.2 vs. 89.3%, S1: 1.5 vs. 2.5%, S2: 5.4 vs. 5.7%, S3: 1.7 vs. 2.1%, S4: 0.19 vs. 0.38%, P = 0.083), 72-h clinically detected rebleeding (2.9% [95% CI 1.7, 4.6] vs. 3.2% [95% CI 2.0, 4.9]), surgery (1.9% [95% CI 1.0, 3.4] vs. 2.1% [95% CI 1.1, 3.5]) or day-3 mortality (0.2% [95% CI 0, 0.09] vs. 0.3% [95% CI 0, 1.1]). Pantoprazole significantly decreased cumulative frequencies of events comprising the ordinal score in spurting lesions (13.9% [95% CI 6.6, 24.7] vs. 33.9% [95% CI 22.1, 47.4]; P = 0.01) and gastric ulcers (6.7% [95% CI 4, 10.4] vs. 14.3% [95% CI 10.3, 19.2], P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes amongst pantoprazole and ranitidine-treated patients were similar; pantoprazole provided benefits in patients with arterial spurting and gastric ulcers.
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
Authors: István Rácz; Tibor Kárász; Krisztina Lukács; Ferenc Rácz; János Kersák; Judit Wacha; Tibor Szalóki; Magdolna Szász; István Gyenes; István Altorjay Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.260