Comparison of infusion or low-dose XXXX inhibitor treatments in upper gastrointestinal system bleeding.

@entity1 @entity1537 @entity548 @entity7080 @entity360
BACKGROUND: The most effective schedule of @entity7080 inhibitor (PPI) administration following endoscopic hemostasis of @entity548 ulcers remains uncertain. AIM: To compare the treatment effects of continuous infusion and low-dose @entity1537 therapies in @entity1 with @entity360 . METHODS: This prospective clinical study compared continuous infusion of @entity1537 (80 mg bolus followed by 8 mg   h continuous infusion for 72 h) and low-dose @entity1537 (40 mg twice daily IV) treatments in @entity360 @entity1 with peptic ulcer presenting a high risk of re- @entity548 , who were administered a successful endoscopic homeostasis. The primary end point was the occurrence of re- @entity548 during hospitalization and within one month of discharge. Secondary outcomes were defined as duration of hospitalization, need of transfusion, surgical treatment, and mortality rate. After 72 h, both groups were switched to oral @entity1537 therapy for one-month. RESULTS: A hundred thirty-two subjects were enrolled. Re- @entity548 occurred in 11 (16.7%) @entity1 in the infusion therapy group and in 12 (18.2%) @entity1 in the low-dose group (P=0.819) within the first 72 h. No @entity1 experienced re- @entity548 in the first month following discharge. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion need, durations of hospitalization, need for surgery and mortality rate. CONCLUSION: PPI infusion therapy following endoscopic hemostasis treatment was not found superior to low-dose PPI therapy in the terms of re- @entity548 , need of surgery and mortality.
