Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers.

Abstract

To compare endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe for the treatment of actively bleeding peptic ulcers. Randomised prospective study of patients admitted with actively bleeding peptic ulcers. One university hospital. 276 patients with actively bleeding ulcers detected by endoscopy within 24 hours of admission: 136 patients were randomised to endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and 140 to adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment. Initial endoscopic haemostasis; clinical rebleeding; requirement for operation; requirement for blood transfusion; hospital stay, ulcer healing at four weeks; and mortality in hospital. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 131/134 patients (98%) who received adrenaline injection alone and 135/136 patients (99%) who received additional heat probe treatment (P = 0.33). Outcome as measured by clinical rebleeding (12 v 5), requirement for emergency operation (14 v 8), blood transfusion (2 v 3 units), hospital stay (4 v 4 days), ulcer healing at four weeks (79.1% v 74%), and in hospital mortality (7 v 8) were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of patients with spurting haemorrhage 8/27 (29.6%; 14.5% to 50.3%) patients from the adrenaline injection alone group and 2/31 (6.5%; 1.1% to 22.9%) patients from the dual treatment group required operative intervention. The relative risk of this was lower in the dual treatment group (0.17; 0.03 to 0.87). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the dual treatment group than the adrenaline injection alone group (4 v 6 days, P = 0.01). The addition of heat probe treatment after endoscopic adrenaline injection confers an advantage in ulcers with spurting haemorrhage.