A prospective randomized trial of heater probe thermocoagulation versus injection therapy in peptic ulcer hemorrhage.

Background: A prospective, randomized study was performed to compare the hemostatic effect of injection therapy and heater probe thermocoagulation in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Methods: This study includes 104 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in whom endoscopy revealed a gastric or duodenal ulcer with nonbleeding or bleeding vessel (n = 66), oozing hemorrhage (n = 21), or adherent red clot (n = 17). Patients with other stigmata or clean ulcers were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned during endoscopy to receive injection therapy (adrenaline and polidocanol) (n = 51) or heater probe thermocoagulation (10F probe, at setting of 30 J (n = 53). Therapy was considered successful if there was no further hemorrhage or only minor rebleeding that was controlled with a second endoscopic procedure. Patients with major rebleeding or failure of retreatment underwent emergency surgery.

Results: There were no significant differences in effectiveness between injection therapy and thermocoagulation in any of the assessed parameters: the percentage of patients with major recurrent hemorrhage (4% vs 6%) or minor rebleeding (16% vs 17%), need for emergency surgery (two patients from each group), transfusion requirement (0.45 +/- 0.9 units vs 0.51 +/- 1.1 units), the mean number of hospitalization days (7.1 +/- 4.2 vs 6.9 +/- 4.9), and mortality (one patient from each group died).

Conclusion: Injection therapy and heater probe have similar efficacies in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.