Hemodynamic efficacy of the new resolution clip device in comparison with high-volume injection therapy in spurting bleeding: a prospective experimental trial using the compactEASIE simulator.

Peptic ulcers are the most frequent cause of gastrointestinal bleeding. The use of hemoclips has become established as an effective form of treatment in addition to injection therapy. However, hemoclips have not previously been compared with injection therapy in an experimental setting using objective parameters.
In a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial, the disposable Resolution hemoclip device (Boston Scientific, n = 40) was compared with conventional injection therapy (n = 40) in an experimental setting, using the compactEASIE simulator equipped with an upper gastrointestinal organ package to simulate bleeding. Four investigators with different levels of endoscopic experience participated in the study. On a randomized basis, each investigator treated 20 bleeding sites either by applying one clip (n = 10) or by carrying out high-volume four-quadrant injection (4 x 10 ml saline) of a spurting vessel. The efficacy of the hemostasis was assessed by continuous measurement of pressure within the afferent vessel before and after clip application or injection therapy and calculating the relative reduction in the vessel's diameter with each treatment method. The system pressure was recorded 1 min before and 1 min after treatment. The ease of application of each method was rated by the endoscopist and by the assisting nurse using a visual analogue scale (0 - 100, with 100 being best).
All of the 40 hemoclipping and injection treatments were carried out successfully. Both methods led to a significant increase in peak pressure (Resolution clip 71.8 +/- 66.8 mm Hg, P < 0.001; injection 71.9 +/- 53.8 mm Hg, P < 0.001), representing a significant relative reduction in the vessel diameter. There were no significant differences in peak pressure between the two treatments ( P = 0.995). The mean increase in pressure during the first minute after the intervention (clip 49.3 +/- 67.0 mm Hg vs. injection 19.9 +/- 41.6 mm Hg) was significantly greater with the hemoclipping procedure ( P = 0.021). More experienced investigators achieved a greater increase in system pressure, but the difference was not significant. The assessments of the ease of application by the assistants (84 +/- 13) and endoscopists (86 +/- 16) did not show any significant differences ( P = 0.402) for the clipping device.
No significant differences between the two treatment methods were detected with regard to the immediate efficacy of hemostasis. However, long-term hemostasis was better with hemoclipping. The endoscopist's level of experience also appears to play a role, particularly when hemoclips are used.
AuthorsJ Maiss, C Baumbach, Y Zopf, A Naegel, M Wehler, T Bernatik, E G Hahn, D Schwab
JournalEndoscopy (Endoscopy) Vol. 38 Issue 8 Pg. 808-12 (Aug 2006) ISSN: 0013-726X [Print] Germany
PMID17001570 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Journal Article)
  • Animals
  • Blood Pressure
  • Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal
  • Equipment Design
  • Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage (drug therapy, physiopathology, therapy)
  • Hemostatic Techniques (instrumentation)
  • Injections
  • Swine

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research network!

Choose Username:
Verify Password: