跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT03155256
NCT03155256已完成不适用

Comparative EUS Guided Techniques in Treatment of Gastric Varice: a Prospective, Ranzomized Study

Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 59 人开始时间: 2016年3月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
发起方
入组人数
59
试验地点
2
主要终点
Efficacy of EUS guided techniques (Coils + CYA vs Coils alone) for GFV treatment

研究概览

简要总结

Bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is associated with high mortality. Injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) using standard gastroscopes has demonstrated higher hemostasis and lower rebleeding rates compared to band ligation or sclerotherapy. Nevertheless CYA treatment is known to be associated with significant adverse events. Pulmonary embolism due to CYA injection is a serious and sometimes fatal complication of this therapy. Romero-Garcia et al. recently showed that, even these patients usually have respiratory symptom, this complication can be present in asymptomatic patients and with only CT pathological images showing it. On the other hand, risk of glue embolism, has been described to be dependent on the volume of CYA injected, being significantly greater with high volume. Other complications related to CYA injection are, hemorrhage from post injection ulcers, fever, peritonitis, needle impaction, and even death. Also the injection material can cause serious damage to the endoscope.

Currently endoscopic treatments are CYA injection under direct visualization using a standard gastroscope and treatment under EUS guidance with injection of CYA, coils or both. However, to date, it is unknown whether one of these techniques is technically more feasible or causes less adverse events than the other.

Treatment under EUS guidance may improve results because of precise targeting of the varix lumen or afferent feeding veins. This allows the vein to be obstructed with a small amount of CYA, less than used for the "blind" injection of GV with standard endoscopic technique and may reduce the risk of glue embolism. EUS can confirm varix obliteration by using Doppler. Also visualization of GV by using EUS is not impaired by blood or food in the stomach and thus can be performed in the setting of active hemorrhage.

详细描述

Coils that are currently used for intravascular embolization treatments can be delivered under EUS guidance offering a new treatment approach. Romero-Castro et al. previously reported a case series by using up to 20 coils to eradicate gastric fundic varices (GFV) in 4 patients, with a 75% success rate. More recently this author compared in a multicenter study the treatment of GFV using EUS guide injection of N-butyl cyanocryloate with Lipiodol vs. EUS guide injection of coils alone. Both techniques had excellent results with GFV obliteration rate of 94.7% and 90.9% respectively. However 47.4% of the patients in the CYA group required more than one session and 36.4% in the coil group either required additional coil or CYA placement. There was a significant difference in the overall adverse event rate between CYA group (57.9%) and coil group (9.1%), due to glue pulmonary embolism.

Coils in conjunction with CYA injection may reduce or eliminate the risk of glue embolization. Coils with attached synthetic fibers ("wool coils") may function as a scaffold to retain CYA within the varix and may decrease the amount of glue injection needed to achieve obliteration. Binmoeller et al. described them 6 years experience in 152 patients with GFV treated with 2-octyl cyanocrylate plus coils. Patients had active hemorrhage (5%), recent bleeding (69%) or were treated for primary prophylaxis (26%). Treatment was technically successful in 151 patients (>99%), with mean number of coils of 1.4 and mean volume of CYA of 2 ml. Follow-up was possible in 125/151 patients (100 using EUS examinations and 25 with clinical and/or EGD follow-up). Complete obliteration was confirmed with EUS-Doppler image in 93/100 (93%). Post-treatment bleeding occurred in 20 of 125 patients (16%) and only 10 (50%) where GFV related bleeding. Mild post procedure abdominal pain occurred in 4 of 125 patients (3%), and clinical signs of pulmonary embolization were seen in 1 patient (1%). Another 4 of 125 patients (3%) presented with minor delayed upper GI bleeding from coil/glue extrusion.

The aim of this study is to describe and compared efficacy and safety two different EUS guided techniques for GFV treatment (Coils + CYA vs. Coils alone). Efficacy will be measure by technical success defined as successful technique performance and functional success defined as complete obliteration of the varix and absence of Doppler flow on EUS. Safety will be determinated by measure of adverse events related to the procedure or gastric varices within and after 30 days of the procedure.

METHODS Setting: Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas (IECED), OmniHospital Academic Tertiary Center. Patients will be included from March 2016 to June 2017. The study protocol and consent form has been approved by the Institutional Review Board and will be conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki. Patients will sign an informed consent.

All procedures will be performed in a hospital-based interventional endoscopy suite, where fluoroscopy is available, by one endoscopist (C.R.M). Procedures will be performed under general anesthesia and under antibiotics prophylactic. After the procedure, patients will be observed for 2 hours in the recovery room before being discharged. Follow up will be performed by standard endoscopy and EUS at 3 and 6 months post procedure. Hemostasis, early post treatment bleeding and late post treatment bleeding will be considered according Baveno VI concensus. Complete obliteration of the varix will be defined as absence of Doppler flow on EUS.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
Single (Participant)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 80 Years(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Above 18 years old patients
  • Who agree to participate in the study
  • Proven GV (GOV II or IGV I) on initial standard diagnostic upper endoscopy
  • Active bleeding, history of previous bleeding (secondary prophylaxis) and primary prophylaxis
  • Patient preference for EUS-guided therapy

排除标准

  • Inability to provide informed consent for the procedure
  • Concurrent hepato-renal syndrome and/or multi-organ failure
  • Pregnancy
  • Platelet count less than 50,000/ml or International Normalized Rate (INR) >2
  • Esophageal stricture
  • Splenic or Portal vein thrombosis because an increase risk of failure

研究组 & 干预措施

Coils + Cyanoacrylate Group

Experimental

Patients with Gastric Varices GOV II or IGV I and with active bleeding, history of previous bleeding due to GV (secondary prophylaxis) or high-risk GV according to Baveno VI consensus for primary prophylaxis will be treated using EUS-guided injection of coils with cyanoacrylate

干预措施: EUS-guided injection of coils with cyanoacrylate (Procedure)

Coils Group

Experimental

Patients with Gastric Varices GOV II or IGV I and with active bleeding, history of previous bleeding due to GV (secondary prophylaxis) or high-risk GV according to Baveno VI consensus for primary prophylaxis will be treated using EUS-guided injection of coils

干预措施: EUS-guided injection of coils (Procedure)

结局指标

主要结局

Efficacy of EUS guided techniques (Coils + CYA vs Coils alone) for GFV treatment

时间窗: 12 month

Efficacy will be measure by technical success defined as successful technique performance and funcional success defined as complete obliteration of the varix and absence of Doppler flow on EUS.

次要结局

  • Safety of EUS guided techniques (Coils + CYA vs Coils alone) for GFV treatment(12 month)

研究者

发起方
Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas
申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验