Research Article

Importance of hypovolaemic shock and endoscopic signs in predicting recurrent haemorrhage from peptic ulceration: a prospective evaluation.

Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 291 doi: (Published 27 July 1985) Cite this as: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;291:245

This article has a correction. Please see:

  1. P C Bornman,
  2. N A Theodorou,
  3. R D Shuttleworth,
  4. H P Essel,
  5. I N Marks


    The incidence of rebleeding was studied prospectively in 177 patients with acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage from peptic ulceration with reference to the degree of haemodynamic insult on admission and the presence of endoscopic signs of recent haemorrhage on initial endoscopy. Rebleeding occurred in two (2%) of 114 patients without shock, in seven (18%) of 38 with tachycardia (pulse rate greater than 100 beats/min, systolic blood pressure greater than 100 mm Hg), and in 12 (48%) of 25 with shock (systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg). A similar gradient was noted with the presence of endoscopic signs alone. Rebleeding occurred in four (5%) of 79 patients with no endoscopic signs, in none of 40 with black spot only, in 11 (23%) of 48 with a clot, and in five (50%) of 10 with a visible vessel on endoscopy. When the incidence of rebleeding was assessed in shocked patients, however, it was significantly higher in those with important signs (clot or visible vessel), in 11 (79%) out of 14 patients, than in those with no signs, in one (9%) out of 11 (p less than 0.001). These data suggest that the association of shock with important endoscopic signs is a stronger predictor of rebleeding than either shock or important signs alone. More aggressive treatment may be warranted in this small group of patients.