摘要
目的旨在比较消化性溃疡出血内镜治疗成功后口服与静脉质子泵抑制剂(PPI)预防再出血的疗效方法连续性入选2010年8月-2013年5月就诊于梅县人民医院的100例高出血风险的消化性溃疡患者,这些患者经内镜治疗成功后被随机分为口服兰索拉唑组和静脉注射埃索美拉唑组。研究主要终点为14 d内再出血的发生率。次要终点为1月内的住院时间、输血量、外科介入及死亡率。结果静脉注射组再出血率为4%(2/50),口服组为4%(2/50)。两组患者在住院时间、输血量、外科介入及死亡率上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。口服兰索拉唑组患者的平均住院时间短于静脉注射埃索美拉唑组(P<0.01)。结论口服质子泵抑制剂患者住院时间更短。没有证据证明口服和静脉注射PPI的临床疗效有不同。然而,此项研究并没有足够证据证明两者等效或非劣效,仍需进一步研究。
[ Objective ] To compare the clinical efficacy of oral and intravenous proton pump inhibitor after endoscopic therapy. [ Methods ] From August 2010 to May 2013,100 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients with hlgh-risk bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned as oral lansoprazole or intravenous esomeprazole group. Primary outcome of the study was rebleeding rate within 14 days. Secondary outcome included hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgical intervention and mortality within 1 month. [ Results ] The rebleeding rates were 4% （2/50） in the intravenous group and 4% （2/50） in the oral group. There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the hospital stay, volume of blood transfusion, surgery or mortality rate. The mean duration of hospital stay was 1.8 clays in the oral lansoprazole group and 3.9 days in the intravenous esomeprazole group （P〈0.01）. [ Conclusion ] Patients receiving oral proton pump inhibitor have as horter hospital stay. There is no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI treatment. However, the study was not powered to prove equivalence or non-inferiority. Future studies are still needed.
出处
《中国医学工程》
2014年第5期17-18,20,共3页
China Medical Engineering
