Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
We have read with great interest the paper by Lau et al,1 which reported that prophylactic angiographic embolisation (PAE) did not reduce recurrent bleeding after endoscopic haemostasis in peptic ulcers.
This randomised controlled trial is well-designed and of high quality; however, there are some points to be discussed. First, patients with Forrest Ia, Ib and IIa ulcers were included in this study without stratification, by which the authors concluded that added embolisation did not contribute to the reduction of recurrent bleeding after endoscopic haemostasis. Rebleeding rates after the endoscopic intervention vary between different Forrest classifications (Forrest Ia: 58.8%, Ib: 26.0% and IIa: 21.2%).2 Based on this classification, we would like to share some of our data here on a retrospective analysis (approved by Clinical Trial and Biomedical Ethics Committee of West China …
HT and TL contributed equally.
Contributors HT: data analysis and interpretation, drafting of the article. TL: data acquisition, analysis and interpretation. C-WT: drafting of the article.
Funding This work is supported by National Natural Science Fund of China (Grant No 81670551, 81 700 539 and U1702281).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Clinical Trial and Biomedical Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, No HX-IRB-AF-12-V3.0.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.