Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding Refractory to Endoscopic Treatment

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 355KB)  PP. 159-165  
DOI: 10.4236/ojgas.2016.66021    2,648 Downloads   4,775 Views  Citations

ABSTRACT

Background: Before the advent of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE), emergency surgery was the only choice for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic therapy. This study compared the effectiveness of TAE and surgery in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 116 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment at our institution. Eighty-three cases were treated with surgery, and 33 cases were managed with TAE. Clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: There were no differences between groups with respect to the mortality rate (p > 0.05), length of hospital stay, or medical diseases related to mortality. The TAE group exhibited a significantly higher rebleeding rate (p < 0.05). Rebleeding predominantly occurred in patients with type Ia peptic ulcers (Forrest classification) irrespective of the treatment approach. The rebleeding rates in such patents were 30.2% and 56.3% in the surgery and TAE groups, respectively. Patients with rebleeding after further therapy showed high mortality rates (68.6%). The rebleeding rate was not significantly different between the subgroups of patients with type Ia lesions, although there was a higher mortality rate in the TAE group (27.9% vs. 75%, p = 0.001). Conclusions: TAE may be the first-choice therapy for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment, whereas emergency surgery may be used as an alternative in patients with type Ia bleeding at institutions with no 24-hour radiology service or when no experienced radiologist is available.

Share and Cite:

Lee, T. and Tung, C. (2016) Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding Refractory to Endoscopic Treatment. Open Journal of Gastroenterology, 6, 159-165. doi: 10.4236/ojgas.2016.66021.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.