42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A randomized trial of endoscopic treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage: N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection versus band ligation.

      Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
      Acute Disease, Aged, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, complications, Enbucrilate, administration & dosage, analogs & derivatives, therapeutic use, Esophageal and Gastric Varices, etiology, Female, Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage, mortality, physiopathology, therapy, Gastroscopy, Hemostasis, Humans, Injections, Intralesional, Ligation, methods, Liver Cirrhosis, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Survival Analysis, Tissue Adhesives, Treatment Outcome

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Progression of gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) is poorer than esophageal variceal bleeding. However, data on its optimal treatment are limited. We designed a prospective study to compare the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (GVL) and endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection (GVO). Liver patients with cirrhosis with or without concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and patients presenting with acute GVH were randomized into two treatment groups. Forty-eight patients received GVL, and another 49 patients received GVO. Both treatments were equally successful in controlling active bleeding (14/15 vs. 14/15, P = 1.000). More of the patients who underwent GVL had GV rebleeding (GVL vs. GVO, 21/48 vs. 11/49; P = .044). The 2-year and 3-year cumulative rate of GV rebleeding were 63.1% and 72.3% for GVL, and 26.8% for both periods with GVO; P = .0143, log-rank test. The rebleeding risk of GVL was sustained throughout the entire follow-up period. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that concomitance with HCC (relative hazard: 2.453, 95% CI: 1.036-5.806, P = .041) and the treatment method (GVL vs. GVO, relative hazard: 2.660, 95% CI: 1.167-6.061, P = .020) were independent factors predictive of GV rebleeding. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. Severe complications attributable to these two treatments were rare. In conclusion, the efficacy of GVL to control active GVH appears not different to GVO, but GVO is associated with a lower GV rebleeding rate.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          Related Documents Log