Objective: To compare endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe for the treatment of actively bleeding peptic ulcers.
Design: Randomised prospective study of patients admitted with actively bleeding peptic ulcers.
Setting: One university hospital.
Subjects: 276 patients with actively bleeding ulcers detected by endoscopy within 24 hours of admission: 136 patients were randomised to endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and 140 to adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment.
Main outcome measures: Initial endoscopic haemostasis; clinical rebleeding; requirement for operation; requirement for blood transfusion; hospital stay, ulcer healing at four weeks; and mortality in hospital.
Results: Initial haemostasis was achieved in 131/134 patients (98%) who received adrenaline injection alone and 135/136 patients (99%) who received additional heat probe treatment (P = 0.33). Outcome as measured by clinical rebleeding (12 v 5), requirement for emergency operation (14 v 8), blood transfusion (2 v 3 units), hospital stay (4 v 4 days), ulcer healing at four weeks (79.1% v 74%), and in hospital mortality (7 v 8) were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of patients with spurting haemorrhage 8/27 (29.6%; 14.5% to 50.3%) patients from the adrenaline injection alone group and 2/31 (6.5%; 1.1% to 22.9%) patients from the dual treatment group required operative intervention. The relative risk of this was lower in the dual treatment group (0.17; 0.03 to 0.87). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the dual treatment group than the adrenaline injection alone group (4 v 6 days, P = 0.01).
Conclusion: The addition of heat probe treatment after endoscopic adrenaline injection confers an advantage in ulcers with spurting haemorrhage.