Comparison of monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation versus hemoclip for peptic ulcer bleeding:...

Although various methods are used in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, there is not a standard recommended approach. The choice depends on multiple factors such as location of the ulcer, clinical experience of the endoscopist, and local facilities of the clinic. We aimed to compare the efficacy of monopolar hemostatic forceps soft coagulation (MHFSC) and hemoclips (HCs) in the treatment of peptic ulcer-related upper GI bleeding.

The study group included patients who had GI bleeding due to Forrest 1a, 1b, and 2a gastric or duodenal ulcers within 1 year. Patients with bleeding diathesis, history of gastrectomy, pregnancy, or younger than age 18 years were excluded. The remaining were randomized to MHFSC and HC treatment groups and compared in terms of clinical and endoscopic features, initial hemostasis success rates, recurrent bleeding rates within the first 7 days, time to achieve hemostasis, length of hospitalization stay, and adverse events.

One hundred twelve patients were randomized to MHFSC (n = 56) and HC (n = 56) groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to demographic features, medications, underlying chronic diseases, location, and Forrest classification of the ulcers. The initial hemostasis success rate was 98.2% (55/56) in the MHFSC group and 80.4% (45/56) in the HC group (P = .004). Recurrent bleeding was detected in 2 patients in the MHFSC group (3.6%) and 8 patients in the HC group (17.7%; P = .04). The duration of endoscopic procedures (302 ± 87.8 vs 568 ± 140.4 seconds) and the length of hospital stay (3.50 ± 1.03 vs 4.37 ± 1.86 days) were significantly shorter in the MHFSC group. There were no adverse events in either group.

MHFSC is more effective in achieving initial hemostasis compared with HCs in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and provides a shorter procedure time and a lower recurrent bleeding rate.