Endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers: a comparison of epinephrine alone with epinephrine plus ethanolamine.

backgroundAmong the various methods of combined endoscopic therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers the use of adrenaline followed by injection of ethanolamine is minimally demanding in terms of the endoscopic skills and instrumentation but has not been adequately studied. The aim of the present study is to determine whether the injection of ethanolamine in combination with epinephrine compared to injection of epinephrine alone reduces rebleeding rates, need for surgery and overall mortality of patients with bleeding ulcers.

methodsPatients with ulcers and endoscopic features indicative of a high risk for spontaneous recurrent bleeding were included. High risk was defined by the Forrest classification. Patients were assigned to injection of epinephrine alone (n = 284) or epinephrine plus ethanolamine (n = 131).

resultsInitial hemostasis was achieved in 96% of patients in both groups. We detected significant difference in rates of recurrent bleeding, 16.4% vs. 8.7%, for epinephrine and epinephrine plus ethanolamine respectively (P<0.05). When patients were stratified according to Forrest criteria, no significant difference could be found, although there was a trend towards less recurrent bleeding in the case of dual injection therapy in all patient subgroups. There was no significant difference in the proportions of patients who required surgery, 7.7% vs. 7.6% respectively. Mortality was equal (3.2 vs. 3.1%) in the two groups. No major complications from endoscopic treatment were observed in either group.

conclusionAdding ethanolamine to epinephrine for injection treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers decreases bleeding recurrence rates and represents a safe endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding ulcers.