Endoscopic hemoclip treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer

Table 1 Number of patients by ulcer type and forrest classification

Type	F1a	F1b
Gastric ulcer	10	14
Duodenal ulcer	5	9
Marginal ulcer	0	2
Total	15	25

Table 2 Number of rebleeding cases in each subgroup

Type	F1a	F1b
Gastric ulcer	1/8a	1/14
Duodenal ulcer	1/5	0/9
Marginal ulcer	0/0	0/2
Total	2/13b	1/25

Data are expressed as rebleeding/subgroup case number.

^aTwo cases without initial hemostasis are excluded.

^bP = 0.27.

Table 3 Outcome of endoscopic hemoclip treatment

Treatment	F1a (n = 15)	F1b (n = 25)	Total (n = 40)
Ultimate hemostasisa	13(87%)	24(96%)	37(93%)
Emergent surgery	1	1	2(5%)
Mortality	1	0	1(3%)

Data are presented as case number (percentage).

^aTwo patients with re-clipping are included. ^bP = 0.28.

Table 4 The relationship between shock and rebleeding rate

Subgroup	F1a	F1b
Shocka	1/5(20%)b	1/6(17%)c
Non-shock	1/8(13%)	0/9 (0%)

Data are expressed as rebleeding/subgroup case number.

^aTwo cases without initial hemostasis are excluded.

^bP = 0.77,

^cP = 0.07 compared with non-shock subgroups.

Table 5 The relationship between shock and ultimate hemostatic rate

Subgroup	F1a	F1b
Shock	5/7(71%)a	5/6(83%)b
Non-shock	8/8(100%)	19/19(100%)

Data are expressed as ultimate hemostasis/subgroup case number.

^aP = 0.11,

^bP = 0.07 compared with non-shock subgroups.

Table 6 Number of clips used per case in different subgroups

Type	F1a	F1b
Gastric ulcer	3.5 (n = 8)	2.9 (n = 14)
Duodenal ulcer	3.2 (n = 5)	2.7 (n = 9)
Marginal ulcer	—	2.5 (n = 2)
Averagea	3.4 (n = 13)	2.8 (n = 25)

^aP = 0.04.