Hemostatic efficacy and clinical outcome of endoscopic treatment of Dieulafoy's lesions: comparison of endoscopic hemoclip placement and endoscopic band ligation

BackgroundThe most suitable mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for a bleeding Dieulafoy's lesion (DL) is not yet well established.ObjectiveTo compare the hemostatic efficacy and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemoclip placement (EHP) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL).DesignRetrospective, single-center study.SettingA tertiary-care referral university hospital.PatientsSixty-six patients who received mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding DLs.InterventionsEndoscopic hemostasis.Main Outcome MeasurementPrimary hemostasis and rebleeding rates.ResultsDLs accounted for 3.8% of cases of acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding during the study period. Active bleeding from DLs was noted in 34 patients (51.5%). EHP and EBL were performed as a method of endoscopic hemostasis in 34 and 32 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to baseline characteristics (except comorbidities) and endoscopic features of DLs. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all 66 patients (100%). There were 6 cases of recurrent bleeding: 5 (14.7%) and 1 (3.1%) in the EHP and EBL groups, respectively. Secondary hemostasis was achieved with endoscopic treatment and angiographic embolization in 5 patients and 1 patient, respectively, and no patients required surgery. The mean procedure time of endoscopic hemostasis was significantly longer in the EHP group (19.1 vs 11.5 minutes, P = .015). There was no bleeding-related mortality.LimitationsRetrospective analysis.ConclusionsBoth EHP and EBL are suitable for the treatment of bleeding DLs. EBL can be used as an initial hemostatic method for bleeding DLs because of a favorable clinical outcome comparable to that with EHP and a shorter procedure time.