A prospective randomized trial of lafutidine vs rabeprazole on post-ESD gastric ulcers

Table 1 Gastric ulcer stages using a six-stage system[11]

Stage	Finding
A1 (active stage 1)	Ulcer that contains mucus coating, with marginal elevation because of edema
A2 (active stage 2)	Mucus-coated ulcer with discrete margin and less edema than active stage 1
H1 (healing stage 1)	Unhealed ulcer covered by regenerating epithelium < 50%, with or without converging folds
H2 (healing stage 2)	Ulcer with a mucosal break but almost covered with regenerating epithelium
S1 (scar stage 1)	Red scar with rough epithelialization without mucosal break
S2 (scar stage 2)	White scar with complete re-epithelialization

Table 2 Characteristics of patients and lesions

	Lafutidine	Rabeprazole	P
Gender (M:F)	21:8	23:8	0.607
Age (mean ± SD)	65.3 ± 8.0	65.4 ± 9.0	0.769
Body mass index (kg/m2) (mean ± SD)	23.2 ± 3.1	23.0 ± 2.7	0.751
Anti-H. pylori antibody (positive:negative)	23:6	24:7	0.729
Ulcerated lesion (yes:no)	5:25	1:33	0.181
Location (upper:middle:lower)	1:16:13	4:20:10	0.251
Lesion depth (mucosal layer: submucosal layer)	27:3	33:1	0.677
Ulcer size immediately after ESD (mm) (mean ± SD)	33.3 ± 9.2	34.7 ± 11.3	0.635

Patient characteristics were analyzed on patient number basis, whereas lesion or ulcer characteristics were analyzed on tumor/ulcer number basis.

Table 3 Ulcer size reduction rate

	Lafutidine	Rabeprazole	P
Ulcer size (Day 0)	33.3 ± 9.2	34.7 ± 11.3	0.635
Ulcer size (Day 28)	10.5 ± 4.8	11.8 ± 6.7	0.421
Reduction rate	32.30%	33.50%	0.974

Table 4 Distribution of ulcer stages on follow-up endoscopy 4 wk after ESD n (%)

Stage	Lafutidine	Rabeprazole
A1	0 (0)	0 (0)
A2	1 (3)	1 (3)
H1	10 (33)	11 (32)
H2	16 (54)	19 (56)
S1	2 (7)	3 (9)
S2	1 (3)	0 (0)

No significant difference was found between the rabeprazole and lafutidine group (P = 0.868).