论文部分内容阅读
Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy(injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors(PPIs).This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection.Systematic searches of PubMed,EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed.There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis.However,the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage(intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration(intravenous vs oral).There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality,which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates.Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a signif icant benef it of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis,while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy.Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.Presently,the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.
Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) .This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2 receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. Host, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs there is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studie s that in epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Patients with second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a sign of beneficence of a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. mayclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Currentlyly, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitute an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.