Helicobacter pylori is a gram-negative, spiral and microaerophilic bacterium that causes mucosal damage and gastric peptic ulcer by infecting the gastric mucosa and decreasing the defense of the mucosa against acid, and histologic examination of samples taken during endoscopy is of great importance in its diagnosis
18,19. NSAIDs may cause peptic ulcers with both systemic prostaglandin inhibition and local effects. NSAID-induced peptic ulcers usually have an asymptomatic course and may rarely lead to complications
20,21
Pilotto et al.22 showed that NSAID use caused a higher risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding than H. pylori infection. In this respect, our study was different from theirs, in that more than 80% of our patients with bleeding due to peptic ulcer were H. pylori positive, both NSAID users and nonusers. This may be explained by the fact that we are a developing country and H. pylori is more common in the developing countries than in the developed countries.
In the study by Ramsoekh et al.23, only 61% of 361 peptic ulcer bleeding patients were tested for H. pylori and one fourth of the patients were not associated with H. pylori and NSAIDs.
Aalykke et al.24 found that patients infected with H. pylori and using NSAIDs were twice as likely to bleed from peptic ulcer than H. pylori negative patients using NSAIDs.
Labenz et al.25 showed that H. pylori eradication therapy reduced the risk of rebleeding in H. pylori-positive patients with duodenal and gastric ulcers. According to Sostres et al.26, H. pylori and NSAID use were independent risk factors for peptic ulcer bleeding.
In our study, the bleeding focus was related to the peptic ulcer in all patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. When we compared H. pylori positivity with the control group, H. pylori positivity was significantly higher in the patient group (p<0.001). In our study, 204 of 245 patients were H. pylori positive, only 41 were H. pylori negative.
In the patient group, 88 (35.9%) patients were using NSAIDs, including acetylsalicylic acid, and 72 (81.8%) of them were H. pylori positive. H. pylori was positive in 111 (83.45%) of 133 patients with PUB who were not using drugs. More than 80% of our patients with NSAID-induced PUB were H. pylori positive, suggesting that H. pylori infection has a synergistic effect on peptic ulcer bleeding in NSAID users.
In this respect, our study showed similar results with many previous studies. In our study, the number of patients infected with H. pylori in PUB was very high and H. pylori positivity was the most common independent risk factor for peptic ulcer bleeding. Bleeding ulcers were most commonly seen in the duodenum, which is similar to the results of other studies.
The shortcomings of our study were that there was no NSAID use in the healthy control group. This prevented us from comparing the effect of NSAIDs with H. pylori infection in the etiology of PUB. In many studies, it is still debated that H. pylori infection alone is the most common independent factor in the etiology of PUB and the high risk of bleeding due to peptic ulcer in NSAID users. Therefore, further and detailed studies are needed to understand the increased risk of H. pylori infection in the etiology of PUB.
In conclusion, in all patients who underwent upper endoscopy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, the main cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was peptic ulcer. H. pylori positivity was significantly higher in the group with peptic ulcer bleeding than in the group of healthy individuals without chronic disease (p<0.001). In the patient group, 83.45% of non-medication users and 81.8% of NSAID users were H. pylori positive.
This shows that H. pylori infection is the most common independent factor in the etiology of peptic ulcer bleeding in the geographical region where we live and its prevalence is gradually increasing; it also contributes to peptic ulcer bleeding by creating a synergistic effect in NSAID users.