Jung-Wook Kim1, Hyun Jin Park1, Jae-Young Jang2, Chi Hyuk Oh3, Jae-Jun Shim1, Chang Kyun Lee1, Young Woon Chang1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemoongu, Seoul, 130-702, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemoongu, Seoul, 130-702, Republic of Korea. jyjang@khu.ac.kr. 3. Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), it is imperative to determine the effect of antiplatelet agents on recurrent bleeding in order to balance risks and benefits. AIMS: We compared the rate of recurrent bleeding in antiplatelet users and non-users. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from PUB patients treated by endoscopic modalities between August 2007 and December 2014. We evaluated and compared the rate of recurrent bleeding within 30 days in antiplatelet users and non-users; we also categorized antiplatelet users into continuation (≤3 days) and withdrawal (>3 days) groups. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were enrolled in the study, 302 (61.6 %) and 188 (38.4 %) in the non-user and antiplatelet user groups, respectively. The recurrent bleeding rate among antiplatelet users (10.1 %) was significantly higher than that among non-users (5.0 %; p = 0.029). Among 188 antiplatelet users, 51 (27.1 %) and 137 (72.9 %) were assigned to the continuation and withdrawal groups, respectively. The rate of recurrent bleeding did not differ significantly between groups (11.7 vs. 5.9 %, p = 0.241). Multivariate analysis revealed chronic kidney disease as a risk factor [odds ratio (OR) 2.890, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.079-7.742, p = 0.035]. However, antiplatelet use (OR 1.691, 95 % CI 0.813-3.517, p = 0.160) was not. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for clinicians to consider underlying diseases in antiplatelet users under the appropriate antiplatelet therapy during the post-hemostasis period. Furthermore, the optimal time to resume antiplatelet agents may be 3 days after successful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with PUB.
BACKGROUND: During treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB), it is imperative to determine the effect of antiplatelet agents on recurrent bleeding in order to balance risks and benefits. AIMS: We compared the rate of recurrent bleeding in antiplatelet users and non-users. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from PUB patients treated by endoscopic modalities between August 2007 and December 2014. We evaluated and compared the rate of recurrent bleeding within 30 days in antiplatelet users and non-users; we also categorized antiplatelet users into continuation (≤3 days) and withdrawal (>3 days) groups. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were enrolled in the study, 302 (61.6 %) and 188 (38.4 %) in the non-user and antiplatelet user groups, respectively. The recurrent bleeding rate among antiplatelet users (10.1 %) was significantly higher than that among non-users (5.0 %; p = 0.029). Among 188 antiplatelet users, 51 (27.1 %) and 137 (72.9 %) were assigned to the continuation and withdrawal groups, respectively. The rate of recurrent bleeding did not differ significantly between groups (11.7 vs. 5.9 %, p = 0.241). Multivariate analysis revealed chronic kidney disease as a risk factor [odds ratio (OR) 2.890, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.079-7.742, p = 0.035]. However, antiplatelet use (OR 1.691, 95 % CI 0.813-3.517, p = 0.160) was not. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for clinicians to consider underlying diseases in antiplatelet users under the appropriate antiplatelet therapy during the post-hemostasis period. Furthermore, the optimal time to resume antiplatelet agents may be 3 days after successful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with PUB.
Authors: James Y Lau; Joseph Sung; Catherine Hill; Catherine Henderson; Colin W Howden; David C Metz Journal: Digestion Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: Michelle A Anderson; Tamir Ben-Menachem; S Ian Gan; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Brooks D Cash; Laurel Fisher; M Edwyn Harrison; Robert D Fanelli; Norio Fukami; Steven O Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Khalid Khan; Mary Lee Krinsky; David R Lichtenstein; John T Maple; Bo Shen; Laura Strohmeyer; Todd Baron; Jason A Dominitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: C Boustière; A Veitch; G Vanbiervliet; P Bulois; P Deprez; A Laquiere; R Laugier; G Lesur; P Mosler; B Nalet; B Napoleon; B Rembacken; N Ajzenberg; J P Collet; T Baron; J-M Dumonceau Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-05-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Francis K L Chan; Jessica Y L Ching; Lawrence C T Hung; Vincent W S Wong; Vincent K S Leung; Nelson N S Kung; Aric J Hui; Justin C Y Wu; Wai K Leung; Vivian W Y Lee; Kenneth K C Lee; Yuk T Lee; James Y W Lau; Ka F To; Henry L Y Chan; S C Sydney Chung; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dewkoemar Ramsoekh; Monique E van Leerdam; Erik A J Rauws; Guido N J Tytgat Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.382