J Inadomi1, J Koch, J P Cello. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, San Francisco General Hospital, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term consequences of endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for bleeding gastric ulcer (GU) and/or duodenal ulcer (DU) over a 42-month period were identified. Long-term follow-up was available for 76 (mean, 495 days; SEM, 45 days). Therapy consisted of epinephrine injection, heater probe use, or both. Recurrent hemorrhage only at the primary treatment site was considered. RESULTS: The sites of hemorrhage were GU (40 patients), DU (34 patients), and both (2 patients). Emergent surgery was required in two GU patients for whom endoscopic treatment was ineffective. Recurrent hemorrhage ultimately occurred in 33% of patients--40% of GU and 25% of DU patients. Surgical therapy was eventually required in 26% of patients after endoscopic hemostasis and was more frequent in patients with recurrent hemorrhage from DU than GU (78% vs 56%). For those patients who re-bled within 8 days of the index endoscopy, 82% required surgery, compared with 33% of patients who re-bled more than 8 days after the index endoscopy (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding GU and DU was 33% in our long-term follow-up. After endoscopic hemostasis, surgery was eventually required in 24% of all patients and in 64% of patients who had recurrent hemorrhage. Patients who had recurrent hemorrhage more than 1 wk after initial endoscopic hemostasis were effectively treated by repeated endoscopic therapy and were significantly less likely to require surgery than patients who re-bled within 1 wk.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term consequences of endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for bleeding gastric ulcer (GU) and/or duodenal ulcer (DU) over a 42-month period were identified. Long-term follow-up was available for 76 (mean, 495 days; SEM, 45 days). Therapy consisted of epinephrine injection, heater probe use, or both. Recurrent hemorrhage only at the primary treatment site was considered. RESULTS: The sites of hemorrhage were GU (40 patients), DU (34 patients), and both (2 patients). Emergent surgery was required in two GU patients for whom endoscopic treatment was ineffective. Recurrent hemorrhage ultimately occurred in 33% of patients--40% of GU and 25% of DU patients. Surgical therapy was eventually required in 26% of patients after endoscopic hemostasis and was more frequent in patients with recurrent hemorrhage from DU than GU (78% vs 56%). For those patients who re-bled within 8 days of the index endoscopy, 82% required surgery, compared with 33% of patients who re-bled more than 8 days after the index endoscopy (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding GU and DU was 33% in our long-term follow-up. After endoscopic hemostasis, surgery was eventually required in 24% of all patients and in 64% of patients who had recurrent hemorrhage. Patients who had recurrent hemorrhage more than 1 wk after initial endoscopic hemostasis were effectively treated by repeated endoscopic therapy and were significantly less likely to require surgery than patients who re-bled within 1 wk.