跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT00292331
NCT00292331已完成3 期

A Randomized Trial of Endoscopic Treatment of Acute Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage: N-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Band Ligation

Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 120 人开始时间: 2006年2月15日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
3 期
状态
已完成
入组人数
120
试验地点
2
主要终点
Comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) in liver cirrhotic patients

研究概览

简要总结

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis by comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute GVH in liver cirrhotic patients with or without concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

详细描述

Gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) has a poorer prognosis than esophageal variceal hemorrhage. 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 cirrhotic patients with or without concomitant hepatocelluar 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% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.5%-81.7%), 72.3% (95% CI, 51.3%-93.3%) for GVL and 26.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-41.1%), 26.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-41.1%) for GVO; P = .0143, log-rank test. The rebleeding risk of GVL 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 due to these two treatments were rare. In conclusion, the efficacy of GVL to control active GVH appears to have no difference with GVO, but GVO is associated with a lower GV rebleeding rate.

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
None

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

  • * Patients who were aged between 18 and 80 years and had endoscopy-proven acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH)

排除标准

  • Cases with concomitant large GV and large EV, but without stigmata of recent bleeding
  • Cases had previous endoscopic, surgical treatment or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for GVH
  • Cases had a terminal illness of any major organ system, like heart failure, uremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or nonhepatic malignancy

结局指标

主要结局

Comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) in liver cirrhotic patients

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other Gov

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验