| Summary: | Objetivo: comparar dos pautas de pantoprazol por vía intravenosa en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva alta (HDA) ulcerosa de alto riesgo para presentar persistencia o recidiva hemorrágica. Material y método: se randomizaron los pacientes en dos grupos: grupo 0: tratamiento con bolo de 80 mg i.v. de pantoprazol y perfusión continua a 8 mg/h durante 72 horas; grupo 1: tratamiento con 40 mg i.v. de pantoprazol diarios. Se analizó el porcentaje de persistencia/recidiva hemorrágica entre ambos grupos, requerimientos transfusionales, necesidad de cirugía y mortalidad del episodio hemorrágico. Resultados: se incluyeron 20 pacientes en el grupo 0 y 21 en el grupo 1. No se encontraron diferencias entre ambos grupos en cuanto al sexo, edad, hábito tabáquico, consumo de AINE, presencia de inestabilidad hemodinámica, estigma sobre el nicho ulceroso (Forrest Ia 5 vs. 14,3%, p = 0,322; Forrest Ib 30 vs. 33,3%, p = 0,819; Forrest IIa 60 vs. 50,1%, p = 0,753). El 90% de los pacientes del grupo 0 recibió tratamiento endoscópico vs. el 100% del grupo 1, p = 0,232. El 50% de los pacientes del grupo 0 recibió transfusión vs. el 52,4% del grupo 1, p = 0,879. Dos pacientes (10,5%) del grupo 0 presentaron recidiva hemorrágica vs. 3 pacientes (14,3%) del grupo 1, precisando cirugía 1 paciente de cada grupo y falleciendo 1 paciente del grupo 0. Conclusiones: la inhibición ácida máxima de la secreción ácida gástrica mediante bolo e infusión continua de pantoprazol no ofrece resultados superiores al tratamiento con dosis convencionales en el episodio hemorrágico agudo.<br>Objective: to compare two regimens of pantoprazole administered intravenously in patients with ulcerative gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB), and a high risk of presenting with persitent or recurrent hemorrhage. Material and method: patients were randomized into two groups: group 0 - treatment with a 80 mg bolus of pantoprazole administered intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/h for 72 hours; group 1 - treatment with 40 mg of pantoprazole administered intravenously on a daily basis. The percentage of hemorrhagic persistence/recurrence in both groups was analyzed, as were transfusion requirements, need for surgery, and mortality resulting from the hemorrhagic episode. Results: there were 20 patients in group 0 and 21 in group 1. No differences were found between groups in terms of gender, age, smoking habits, use of NSAIDs, presence of hemodynamic instability or stigmata in ulcer crater (Forrest Ia: 5 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.322; Forrest Ib: 30 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.819; Forrest IIa: 60 vs. 50.1%, p = 0.753). In group 0, 90% of patients received endoscopic treatment, versus 100% in group 1, p = 0.232. In group 0, 50% of patients had a transfusion, as compared to 52.4% in group 1, p = 0.879. In group 0, 2 patients (10.5%) presented with recurrent hemorrhage, versus 3 patients (14.3%) in group 1. Surgery was required by 1 person from each group, and 1 patient in group 0 died. Conclusions: maximum acid inhibition with a bolus and a then a continuous infusion of pantoprazole does not yield better results than treatment with conventional doses in acute hemorrhagic episodes.
|
|---|
