• Chittinad Havanond and Piyalamporn Havanond.
• Medical science, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Paholyothin Road, Pathumthani, Thailand, 12120.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7; 2009 (4): CD003791CD003791.

BackgroundEndoscopic treatment is recommended for initial hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Many endoscopic hemostatic devices are used. Argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) is an alternative.ObjectivesThis study reviews all available literature to access the efficacy of APC compared to other endoscopic therapies in the control of acute non-variceal upper GI hemorrhage.Search StrategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4 2003), MEDLINE 1966 to December 2003, EMBASE 1980 to December 2003, Web of Science for SCISEARCH (1980 to December 2003), BIOSIS (1985 to December 2003), and the National Research Register Issue 4 2003. We also handsearched abstracts from conference proceedings of the United European Gastroenterology Week and Digestive Disease Week.Selection CriteriaRandomized, controlled trials of APC compared with other endoscopic hemostasis interventions in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo reviewers assessed trial quality and independently extracted data.Main ResultsTwo trials involving 121 people were included. There was no common intervention to pool. One trial compared APC to heat probe, another trial compared APC to injection sclerotherapy. There was no significant difference between groups in either of these trials.Authors' ConclusionsOn the basis of the two randomised controlled trials identified in this review, there is no evidence to suggest that APC is superior to other endoscopic therapies. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.

12 keywords...

hide…