医学
止血
倾向得分匹配
混淆
内科学
切断
胃肠病学
外科
量子力学
物理
作者
Zhenhua Zhu,Yongkang Lai,Liu Ouyang,Nonghua Lv,Youxiang Chen,Xu Shu
标识
DOI:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000294
摘要
To define the best cutoff of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) for identifying high- and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis and compare the efficacy of high-dose and standard-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (HD-IVPs and SD-IVPs, respectively) in this patient population.We retrospectively reviewed the data of 346 patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who underwent endoscopic hemostasis between March 2014 and September 2018 in our center and were divided into an HD-IVP group and an SD-IVP group. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed to control for selection bias and other potential confounders. Recurrent bleeding rates were calculated according to the GBS.Overall, 346 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled, with 89 patients in the SD-IVP group and 89 patients in the HD-IVP group after matching with all baseline characteristics balanced (P > 0.05). GBS = 8 was the best cutoff for identifying high-risk rebleeding patients (GBS ≥ 8) with a significant difference (P = 0.015) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (17/61, 27.9%) and HD-IVP (7/65, 10.8%) groups and low-risk rebleeding patients (GBS < 8) with no difference (P = 1) in recurrence rate between the SD-IVP (2/28, 7.1%) and HD-IVP (2/24, 8.3%) groups.The best cutoff for identifying high-risk and low-risk rebleeding patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis was GBS = 8. Although HD-IVP is more effective than SD-IVP in high-risk patients, they are equally effective in low-risk patients.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI