Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. May 14, 2012; 18(18): 2219-2224
Published online May 14, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2219
Published online May 14, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2219
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
Primary outcome | |||
Early recurrent bleeding | 15 (30) | 8 (16) | 2 (4)cb |
Stigmata | |||
Spurting | 4 (26.7) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (50) |
Oozing | 5 (33.3) | 2 (25) | 1 (50) |
Visible vessel | 6 (40) | 5 (62.5) | 0 |
Secondary outcomes | |||
Initial hemostasis | 50 (100) | 50 (100) | 50 (100) |
Permanent hemostasis | 44 (88) | 46 (92) | 48 (96) |
Emergency surgery | 6 (12) | 4 (8) | 2 (4) |
30-d mortality | 3 (6) | 0 (0) | 4 (8) |
Blood transfusion (mL) | 1041 (120-1997) | 912 (0-2039) | 840 (0-1893) |
Hospital stays (d) | 7.5 (1-14) | 7.6 (1-15) | 5.7(1-15)bd |
-
Citation: Ljubicic N, Budimir I, Biscanin A, Nikolic M, Supanc V, Hrabar D, Pavic T. Endoclips
vs large or small-volume epinephrine in peptic ulcer recurrent bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(18): 2219-2224 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i18/2219.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2219