A Comparison of Cimetidine and Sucralfate in the Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcers

Joel P. Goldfarb, Mark J. Czaja

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


To assess the efficacy of cimetidine versus sucralfate in terminating or preventing further bleeding of peptic ulcers, patients presenting with bleeding from duodenal or gastric ulcers were openly randomized to receive cimetidine 1800 mg/day or sucralfate 8 g/day for a 1‐wk period. All patients were endoscoped within 8 h of their presentation with bleeding. Patients were included only if they bad evidence of severe or active bleeding. After randomization, patients were assessed for transfusion requirements, continued bleeding and rebleeding, the need for emergency surgery, and medication side effects. Ten patients were randomized to each group. Mean transfusion requirements were the same in both groups. In the cimetidine group, two patients rebled and two bad serious side effects. In the sucralfate group, two patients bad rebleeding requiring surgery, and the re were no side effects of therapy. Sucralfate may be an alternative to cimetidine in treating bleeding peptic ulcers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5-7
Number of pages3
JournalThe American Journal of Gastroenterology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1985

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology


Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison of Cimetidine and Sucralfate in the Treatment of Bleeding Peptic Ulcers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this