Gastroenterologie clinique et biologique · 1997
[Evaluation by a randomized trial of the usefulness of endoscopy after treatment of a flare-up of non-severe esophagitis].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Poynard T, Ottignon Y, Pauphilet C, Agostini H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The clinical usefulness of esophageal endoscopy at the end of a treatment of non-severe esophagitis due to gastro-esophageal reflux is unknown. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare two strategies for the management of non-severe esophagitis, one with endoscopy at the end of the initial treatment including a retreatment of persistent ulcerations (group 1) and one without final endoscopy (group 2).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had heartburn and endoscopically proved esophagitis, non-confluent or confluent erosions and must have been relieved of their heartburn after a 4 to 6 week treatment with H2 blockers or by proton pump inhibitor. When the ulcerations were healed in group 1 and immediately at the end of the initial treatment in group 2, a self-care treatment by sodium alginate was prescribed. A total of 369 patients were randomized, 178 in group 1, 191 in group 2.
RESULTS: At 6 months, there was no difference in the percentage of patients with clinical and endoscopical success, 52% and 55% in group 1 versus 47% and 60% in group 2 respectively. In group 1, 29 patients (16%) needed another treatment than alginate versus 31 patients in group 2 (16%, NS). Among patients with endoscopy at 6 months, the percentage of patients with confluent erosions was 4% (5/140) and with non-confluent erosion 26% (37/140) in group 1 versus 6% (9/158) and 22% (34/158) in group 2 respectively (NS). The percentage of patients with at least one sick day related to reflux was 12% in group 1 versus 5% in group 2 (P = 0.03). There was no difference in pharmacy costs (331,40 vs 264,3 Francs).
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic verification is not necessary in patients with non-severe esophagitis who have been clinically improved by an initial treatment by H2 blockers or proton pump inhibitor, even among patients with confluent esophageal erosions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had heartburn and endoscopically proved esophagitis, non-confluent or confluent erosions and must have been relieved of their heartburn after a 4 to 6 week treatment with H2 blockers or by proton pump inhibitor. When the ulcerations were healed in group 1 and immediately at the end of the initial treatment in group 2, a self-care treatment by sodium alginate was prescribed. A total of 369 patients were randomized, 178 in group 1, 191 in group 2.
RESULTS: At 6 months, there was no difference in the percentage of patients with clinical and endoscopical success, 52% and 55% in group 1 versus 47% and 60% in group 2 respectively. In group 1, 29 patients (16%) needed another treatment than alginate versus 31 patients in group 2 (16%, NS). Among patients with endoscopy at 6 months, the percentage of patients with confluent erosions was 4% (5/140) and with non-confluent erosion 26% (37/140) in group 1 versus 6% (9/158) and 22% (34/158) in group 2 respectively (NS). The percentage of patients with at least one sick day related to reflux was 12% in group 1 versus 5% in group 2 (P = 0.03). There was no difference in pharmacy costs (331,40 vs 264,3 Francs).
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic verification is not necessary in patients with non-severe esophagitis who have been clinically improved by an initial treatment by H2 blockers or proton pump inhibitor, even among patients with confluent esophageal erosions.