BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this study, investigations were carried out to ascertain whether soft coagulation hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has ever been performed in a time-dependent manner. METHODS: Medical records of 502 patients who had undergone emergency endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB from 2003 to 2014 were checked and the modalities were used to achieve hemostasis compared between the first period from 2003 to 2008 (197 patients) and the second period from 2009 to 2014 (305 patients). RESULTS: Endoscopic hemostasis was successfully achieved in 96.0% of study patients. Peptic ulcers were the main cause of bleeding (89.4%). Endoscopic hemostasis was performed by soft coagulation significantly more frequently during the second (71.1%) than the first period (11.7%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis was mainly achieved by trainees during the second period (76.1%); these trainees comprised a significantly greater proportion of endoscopists than during the first period (56.3%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic-related complications did not differ between the 2 periods. The only risk factor for rebleeding after hemostasis was Helicobacter pylori infection; the use of soft coagulation and the fact that endoscopists were just trainees were not risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that using soft coagulation to achieve endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB is safe and effective, even when it is performed by trainees.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this study, investigations were carried out to ascertain whether soft coagulation hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has ever been performed in a time-dependent manner. METHODS: Medical records of 502 patients who had undergone emergency endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB from 2003 to 2014 were checked and the modalities were used to achieve hemostasis compared between the first period from 2003 to 2008 (197 patients) and the second period from 2009 to 2014 (305 patients). RESULTS: Endoscopic hemostasis was successfully achieved in 96.0% of study patients. Peptic ulcers were the main cause of bleeding (89.4%). Endoscopic hemostasis was performed by soft coagulation significantly more frequently during the second (71.1%) than the first period (11.7%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic hemostasis was mainly achieved by trainees during the second period (76.1%); these trainees comprised a significantly greater proportion of endoscopists than during the first period (56.3%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic-related complications did not differ between the 2 periods. The only risk factor for rebleeding after hemostasis was Helicobacter pylori infection; the use of soft coagulation and the fact that endoscopists were just trainees were not risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that using soft coagulation to achieve endoscopic hemostasis for non-variceal UGIB is safe and effective, even when it is performed by trainees.