Published online Oct 16, 2017. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i10.514
Peer-review started: March 23, 2017
First decision: April 17, 2017
Revised: May 19, 2017
Accepted: July 14, 2017
Article in press: July 17, 2017
Published online: October 16, 2017
To evaluate the effectiveness of oral esomeprazole (EPZ) vs injectable omeprazole (OPZ) therapy to prevent hemorrhage after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
A case-control study was conducted using a quasi-randomized analysis with propensity score matching. A total of 258 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were treated with either oral EPZ or injectable OPZ. The endpoint was the incidence of hemorrhage after ESD.
Data of 71 subjects treated with oral EPZ and 172 subjects treated with injectable OPZ were analyzed. Analysis of 65 matched samples revealed no difference in the incidence of hemorrhage after ESD between the oral EPZ and injectable OPZ groups (OR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.35-2.27, P ≥ 0.99).
We conclude that oral EPZ therapy is a useful alternative to injectable PPI therapy for the prevention of hemorrhage after ESD.
Core tip: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been reported to be effective for suppressing hemorrhage after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, it remains unclear whether oral PPI therapy or injectable PPI therapy is preferable. The results of the present study indicate that oral effectiveness of oral esomeprazole therapy is a useful alternative to injectable PPI therapy for the prevention of hemorrhage after ESD.