Somatostatin compared with cimetidine in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer without visible vessel.

ABSTRACT

In a randomized double-blind trial 100 patients with severe bleeding peptic ulcers were treated with an intravenous (i.v.) infusion of cimetidine or somatostatin. Only those patients in whom endoscopy performed within 6 h of admission showed non-arterial bleeding or signs of recent haemorrhage without a visible vessel entered the trial. The two treatment groups were well matched for age, sex, presence of underlying disease, prior ingestion of ulcerogenic drugs, tobacco habits, type of bleeding, haematocrit at admission, presence of hypovolaemic shock, source of bleeding and endoscopic findings. Four patients in each group were excluded after randomization. Further haemorrhage occurred in eight (17.3%) patients in the somatostatin group and in 10 (21.7%) in the cimetidine group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The number of surgical procedures, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospitalization and mortality rates were similar in the two treatment groups. These results suggest that somatostatin does not improve the results obtained with cimetidine in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer, in whom the endoscopy discloses non-arterial bleeding or signs of recent haemorrhage without a visible vessel.