Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2016
A Prospective Study of Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy and Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in the Treatment of Esophageal Varices.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ali Syed Mohsin, Wu Shanbin, Xu Hongwei, Liu Hui, Hao Jinghua, Qin Chengyong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, we compared the EIS and EVL in 124 patients who had endoscopically proved bleeding from esophageal varices. According to different treatment methods, they were randomly divided into the EIS and the EVL groups. Sixty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 60 with ligation. The patients were followed for a mean of 2 years, during which we determined the incidence of complications and recurrences of bleeding and the number of treatment sessions needed to eradicate varices, mortality, and survival.
RESULTS: Active bleeding at the first treatment was controlled by EIS in 19 of 19 patients and by EVL in 16 of 16 patients. The likelihood of early rebleeding was slightly smaller in the patients treated with EIS (7.8% versus 11.7%, P = .47). However, late rebleeding rate was slightly more in EIS patients (28.1% versus 23.3%, P = .54) without statistical significance. The rate of eradication of varices in the EIS group was slightly lower than in the EVL group (79.7% versus 86.7%, P = .30). There were also no statistically significant differences in mortality (1.6% versus 3.3%, P = .61) or survival rate (71.9% versus 78.3%, P = .41) (all P > .05) after EIS and EVL. However, fever in the EIS group was significantly higher compared to that of in the EVL group (n = 17, 26.6% versus n = 6, 10.0%, P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Both EIS and EVL produce excellent results, are safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable for EVB with minimum complications and obviate need for subsequent procedures in the short term. To make better choice, we should consider the hospital conditions, operator experience, and the characteristics of esophageal varices.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, we compared the EIS and EVL in 124 patients who had endoscopically proved bleeding from esophageal varices. According to different treatment methods, they were randomly divided into the EIS and the EVL groups. Sixty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 60 with ligation. The patients were followed for a mean of 2 years, during which we determined the incidence of complications and recurrences of bleeding and the number of treatment sessions needed to eradicate varices, mortality, and survival.
RESULTS: Active bleeding at the first treatment was controlled by EIS in 19 of 19 patients and by EVL in 16 of 16 patients. The likelihood of early rebleeding was slightly smaller in the patients treated with EIS (7.8% versus 11.7%, P = .47). However, late rebleeding rate was slightly more in EIS patients (28.1% versus 23.3%, P = .54) without statistical significance. The rate of eradication of varices in the EIS group was slightly lower than in the EVL group (79.7% versus 86.7%, P = .30). There were also no statistically significant differences in mortality (1.6% versus 3.3%, P = .61) or survival rate (71.9% versus 78.3%, P = .41) (all P > .05) after EIS and EVL. However, fever in the EIS group was significantly higher compared to that of in the EVL group (n = 17, 26.6% versus n = 6, 10.0%, P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Both EIS and EVL produce excellent results, are safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable for EVB with minimum complications and obviate need for subsequent procedures in the short term. To make better choice, we should consider the hospital conditions, operator experience, and the characteristics of esophageal varices.