Optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding

• Published in: World journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 12; no. 19; pp. 3108 - 3113
• Main Authors: Liou, Tai-Cherng, Lin, Shee-Chan, Wang, Horng-Yuan, Chang, Wen-Hsiung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Mackay Medicine,Nursing and Management College, Taipei, Taiwan, China 21.05.2006; Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited
• Subjects: Aged; Blood Pressure - physiology; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Epinephrine - administration & dosage; Epinephrine - adverse effects; Epinephrine - therapeutic use; Female; Hemostasis - physiology; Humans; Injections - methods; Injections - standards; Male; Middle Aged; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - drug therapy; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - physiopathology; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage - prevention & control; Prospective Studies; Rapid Communication; Recurrence; Vasoconstrictor Agents - administration & dosage; Vasoconstrictor Agents - adverse effects; Vasoconstrictor Agents - therapeutic use; 内窥镜; 肾上腺素; 胃溃疡; Epinephrine; Peptic ulcer bleeding; Endoscopic injection; Volume
• ISSN: 1007-9327; 2219-2840
• DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i19.3108

AIM： To define the optimal injection volume of epinephrine with high efficacy for hemostasis and low complication rate in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. METHODS： This prospective, randomized, comparative trial was conducted in a medical center. A total of 228 patients with actively bleeding ulcers （spurting or oozing） were randomly assigned to three groups with 20, 30 and 40 mL endoscopic injections of an 1：10000 solution of epinephrine. The hemostatic effects and clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups. RESULTS： There were no significant differences in all background variables between the three groups. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 97.4%, 98.7% and 100% of patients respectively in the 20, 30 and 40 mL epinephrine groups. There were no significant differences in the rate of initial hemostasis between the three groups. The rate of peptic ulcer perforation was significantly higher in the 40 mL epinephrine group than in the 20 and 30 mL epinephrine groups （P 〈 0.05）. The rate of recurrent bleeding was significantly higher in the 20 mL epinephrine group （20.3%） than in the 30 （5.3%） and 40 mL （2.8 %） epinephrine groups （P 〈 0.01）. There were no significant differences in the rates of surgical intervention, the amount of transfusion requirements, the days of hospitalization, the deaths from bleeding and 30 d mortality between the three groups. The number of patients who developed epigastric pain due to endoscopic injection, was significantly higher in the 40 mL epinephrine group （51/76） than in the 20 （2/76） and 30 mL （5/76） epinephrine groups （P 〈 0.001）. Significant elevation of systolic blood pressure after endoscopic injection was observed in the 40 mL epinephrine group （P 〈 0.01）. Significant decreasing and normalization of pulse rates after endoscopic injections were observed in the 20 mL and 30 mL epinephrine groups （P 〈 0.01）. CONCLUSION： Injection of 30 mL diluted epinephrine （1：10000） can effectively prevent recurrent bleeding with a low rate of complications. The optimal injection volume of epinephrine for endoscopic treatment of an actively bleeding ulcer （spurting or oozing） is 30 mL.