Epinephrine injection therapy versus a combination of epinepnrine injection and endoscopic hemoclip in the treatment of bleeding ulcers

AIM: To assess the efficacy of hemoclip application in combination with epinephrine injection in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers and to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with such a combination therapy and those treated with epinephrine injection alone.METHODS: A total of 293 patients (211 males, 82females) underwent endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Of these, 202 patients (152 males, 50females) received epinephrine injection therapy while 91patients (59 males, 32 females) received combination therapy. The choice of endoscopic therapy was made by the endoscopist. Hemostatic rates, rebleeding rates, need for emergency surgery and 30-d mortality were the outcome measures studied.RESULTS: Patients who received combination therapy were significantly older (mean age 66±16 years, range24-90 years) and more suffered from chronic renal failure compared to those who received epinephrine injection therapy alone (mean age 61±17 years, range 21-89 years).Failure to achieve permanent hemostasis was 4% in the group who received epinephrine injection alone and 11%in the group who received combination therapy. When the differences in age and renal function between the two treatment groups were taken into account by multivariate analysis, the rates of initial hemostasis,rebleeding rates, need for surgery and 30-d mortality for both treatment options were not significantly different.CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of epinephrine injection with endoscopic hemoclip application is an effective method of achieving hemostasis in bleeding peptic ulcer diseases. However, superiority of combination therapy over epinephrine injection alone, could not be demonstrated.

A comparison of the clinical, demographic and psychiatric profiles among patients with erosive and non-erosive reflux disease in a multi-ethnic Asian country

AIM: To examine the clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and compare erosive (ERD) with non-erosive (NERD) in terms of clinical, demographic and psychiatric profiles.METHODS: Patients with reflux symptoms were enrolled and stratified to NERD and ERD after endoscopy (LA classification). Patients with ERD presenting with dyspepsia were included. Patients on proton pump inhibitors (PPI) or H2 receptor antagonists before endoscopy were excluded.Demographic data, Helicobacter pylori (H pylon) status and presence of minor psychiatric morbidity (based on General Health Questionnaire-28) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 690 patients screened, 533 were eligible for analysis (male to female ratio: 3:2; Chinese: 75.4%; Malay: 9.8%; Indian: 14.8%). Clinical spectrum of GERD: N: 40.5%; A: 46%; B: 9.2%; C: 2.1%; D: 0.6%; Barrett's esophagus: 1.7%. Compared to patients with NERD, patients with ERD were significantly older (45 vs 39.4 years), more likely to be male (64.4% vs 53.7%),tended to smoke (19.6% vs 9.7%), less likely to haveminor psychiatric morbidity (26.4 vs 46.7%) and were more likely to respond to PPI (79.7 vs66.8%). There wasalso a trend towards a higher BMI (24.5 vs 23.5). Race,alcohol consumption and H pylori status were not significant.On multivariate analysis, age and presence of minor psychiatric morbidity remained with significant differences. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients who have typical symptoms of GERD have NERD or mild erosive reflux disease. Compared to patients with erosive reflux disease, patients with NERD were younger and had a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric morbidity.