Hemostatic Effect of Endoscopic Hemoclip Method, Hypertonic Saline Epinephrine Injection Method and Their Combined Method for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Chung, Il Kwun; Sung, Jae Rak; Lee, Tae Young; Chang, Jae Young; Kim, Hong Soo; Park, Sang Hum; Lee, Mun Ho; Kim, Sun Joo

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bleeding peptic ulcer is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Various different endoscopic hemostatic methods were introduced to treat bleeding peptic ulcer. Many studies reported the efficacy and comparision of various methods. Endoscopic injection therapy is the most comman method among them because it is inexpensive and easy in use. Complications of injection therapy such as aggravation of bleeding, tissue neerosis and perforation were repoted rarely. Recently endoscopic hemoclipping method is considered to be safe and effective hemostatic method for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
METHODS
During the period between January 1993 and August 1996, we have conducted clinical trial and retrospective analysis among 100 patients in whom active bleeding or visible vessel was identified.
RESULTS
1) Three groups was divided, Hemoclip group 26 cases, Hypertonic Saline Epinephrine(HSE) group 59 cases, Combination group 15 cases. 2) The sources of bleeding in Hemoclip group were gastric ulcer in 23 Cases and duodenal ulcer in 3 cases, and in HSE group, gastric ulcer in 44 case, duodenal ulcer 14 cases and stomal ulcer in one case, and in combination group, gastric ulcer in 10 cases, duodenal ulcer in 3 cases and stomal ulcer in two cases. HSE and combination method were performed more than Hemoclip method in duodenal ulcer(23.7% and 20.0% versus 11.5%). 3) As the stigmata of bleeding in Hemoclip and HSE and Combination group, spurting were seen in 5 cases and 3 cases and 4 cases, and oozing in 10 cases and 17 cases and 3 cases, and nonbleeding visible vessel in 11 cases and 39 cases and 8 cases, respectively. Hemoclip method was performed more than HSE method in active bleeding state(57.6% versus 33.9%). 4) Initial hemostasis was achieved in 24 cases(92.3%) in Hemoclip group and 52 cases(88.1%) in HSE group, 13 cases(86.7%) in Combination group. 5) The rebleeding developed in 1 case(4.2%) in Hemoclip group and 8 cases(15.4%) in HSE group and 1 case(7.6%) in Combination group, the emergent operation was undewent 2 cases(7.7%) in Hemoclip group and 10 cases(17.0%) in HSE group and 1 case(6.7%) in Combination group, respectively. 6) The death was noticed in 1 cases(3.9%) in Hemoclip group and 2 cases(3.4%) in HSE group and 2 case(13.3%) in Combination group, repectively. 7) Permanent hemostasis by only endoscopic treatment was achieved in 24 cases(92.3%) in Hemoclip group and 48 cases(81.4%) in HSE group, 12 cases(80.0%) in Combination group. 8) Complication was noticed only in HSE group, aggravation of bleeding in one case and hematoma in two cases.
CONCLUSION
Hemoclip method was effective hemostatic method same as HSE injection method, and safe method weth low complication in bleeding peptic ulcer. We suggest more detail selection of endoscopic hemostatic method in variously individualized endoscopic features.