Endoscopic injection therapy of bleeding ulcer: a prospective and randomized comparison of adrenaline alone or with polidocanol

• Published in: Journal of clinical gastroenterology Vol. 17; no. 3; p. 195
• Main Authors: Villanueva, C, Balanzó, J, Espinós, J C, Fábrega, E, Sáinz, S, González, D, Vilardell, F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-10-1993
• Subjects: Epinephrine - administration & dosage; Epinephrine - therapeutic use; Female; Hemostasis, Endoscopic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - epidemiology; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - therapy; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols - administration & dosage; Polyethylene Glycols - therapeutic use; Prospective Studies; Sclerosing Solutions - therapeutic use; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0192-0790
• DOI: 10.1097/00004836-199310000-00005

In a prospective randomized trial involving 63 patients with bleeding peptic ulcer, we assessed whether the addition of 1% polidocanol improved the results achieved by 1/10(4) adrenaline alone for injection therapy. The inclusion criterion was the presence of active arterial bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel at emergency endoscopy. Thirty patients were treated with 1/10(4) adrenaline (group A) and 33 with adrenaline plus 1% polidocanol (group B). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 97% of cases in both groups and permanent hemostasis in 87% patients in group A and in 76% in group B (p = NS). Mortality was 6% in group A and 3% in group B. There were no differences between the two groups regarding requirements for emergency surgery, the number of transfusions, or the length of hospital stay. One patient in group B had a perforation. No other relevant complications were noted. In conclusion, combined therapy does not improve the results achieved with adrenaline alone.