The researchers compared the hemostatic effects of endoscopic heater probe thermocoagulation and hemoclip in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.
The findings of the study were published in the September issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
A total of 80 patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels were included in the study.
They were randomized to receive endoscopic hemoclip (n = 40) or heater probe thermocoagulation (n = 40).
Initial hemostasis was achieved in 85% of patients in the hemoclip group and 100% in the heater probe group.
Rebleeding occurred in 9% of patients in the hemoclip group and 5% in the heater probe group.
Heater probe: 100%
| American Journal of Gastroenterology |
The authors discovered that, among patients with difficult-to-approach bleeding, a better hemostatic rate was obtained in the heater probe group (9 of 11 patients vs 3 of 10).
The volume of blood transfused after entry into the study, duration of hospital stay, number of patients requiring urgent surgery, and the mortality rate were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups.
Author Hwai-Jeng Lin, of the National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, said on behalf of the group, "For patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, heater probe thermocoagulation offers an advantage in achieving hemostasis over hemoclip.
"In addition, in difficult-to-approach bleeders, heater probe is a more suitable therapeutic modality."