Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 1995
Endoscopic variceal ligation versus conservative treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and bleeding esophageal varices.
Клиническое исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Chen C Y, Chang T T, Lin C Y, Shin J S, Chem C Y, Chi C H, Sheu B S, Lin X Z
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is currently a favored treatment for control of bleeding from esophageal varices. However, little is known about the treatment of bleeding varices in hepatocellular carcinoma.
METHODS: EVL was performed in 16 patients with bleeding esophageal varices due to concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma. Treatment results were compared with those of another 23 patients who were conservatively treated.
RESULTS: Comparing the two groups, ligation significantly reduced the risk of fatal bleeding (44% vs 70%; P < 0.05). Significantly fewer patients in the ligation group died at the time of the index hemorrhage (11% vs 52%; P < 0.05). Rebleeding occurred in 44% of the ligation group and 73% in the control group (P > 0.05). The mean days of survival were 40 +/- 20 (range, 7 to 103) in the ligation group and 20 +/- 30 (range, 1 to 136) in the control group (P = 0.08). In the absence of portal vein thrombosis, ligation significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (17% vs 50%, P < 0.05) and the mortality rate (0% vs 100%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: EVL is a good choice for palliation in patients with esophageal variceal bleeding and hepatocellular carcinoma. Aggressive use of EVL may be tried in those patients without portal venous thrombosis.
METHODS: EVL was performed in 16 patients with bleeding esophageal varices due to concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma. Treatment results were compared with those of another 23 patients who were conservatively treated.
RESULTS: Comparing the two groups, ligation significantly reduced the risk of fatal bleeding (44% vs 70%; P < 0.05). Significantly fewer patients in the ligation group died at the time of the index hemorrhage (11% vs 52%; P < 0.05). Rebleeding occurred in 44% of the ligation group and 73% in the control group (P > 0.05). The mean days of survival were 40 +/- 20 (range, 7 to 103) in the ligation group and 20 +/- 30 (range, 1 to 136) in the control group (P = 0.08). In the absence of portal vein thrombosis, ligation significantly reduced the rebleeding rate (17% vs 50%, P < 0.05) and the mortality rate (0% vs 100%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: EVL is a good choice for palliation in patients with esophageal variceal bleeding and hepatocellular carcinoma. Aggressive use of EVL may be tried in those patients without portal venous thrombosis.