Sarin Shiv K, Wadhawan Manav, Gupta Rajesh, Shahi Hansa
Department of Gastroenterology, GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Dig Dis Sci. 2005 Aug;50(8):1538-47. doi: 10.1007/s10620-005-2877-1.
Both EVL and drug therapy are effective in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. Comparisons between the two modalities are few, and only in cirrhotics. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared EVL with drug therapy (propranolol + ISMN) in the prevention of rebleeds from esophageal varices in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) patients. One hundred thirty-seven variceal bleeders were randomized to EVL (Group I; n = 71) or drug therapy (Group II; n = 66). In Group I, EVL was done every 2 weeks till obliteration of varices. In Group II, propranolol (dose sufficient to reduce heart rate to 55 bpm/maximum tolerated dose) and ISMN (incremental dose up to 20 mg BD) were administered. Group I and II patients had comparable baseline characteristics, follow-up (12.4 vs. 11.1 months), cirrhotics and noncirrhotics [50(70.4%) and 21(29.6%) vs. 51(77.3%) and 15(22.7%)] and frequency of Child's A (35 vs. 27), B (26 vs. 28), and C (9 vs. 11). The mean daily dose was 109 +/- 46 mg propranolol and 34 +/- 11 mg ISMN and was comparable in cirrhotic and NCPH patients. Upper GI bleeds occurred in 10 patients in Group I (5 from esophageal varices) and in 18 patients in Group II (15 from esophageal varices) (P = 0.06). The actuarial probability of rebleeding from esophageal varices at 24 months was 22% in Group I and 37% in Group II (P = 0.02). The probability of bleed was significantly higher in Child's C compared to Child's A/B cirrhotics (P = 0.02). On subgroup analysis, in NCPH patients, the actuarial probability of bleed at 24 months was significantly lower in Group I compared to Group II (25% vs 37%; P = 0.01). In cirrhotics, there was no difference in the probability of rebleeding between patients in Group I and those in Group II (P = 0.74). In Group II, 25.7% patients had adverse effects of drug therapy and 9% patients had to stop propranolol due to serious adverse effects, none required stopping ISMN. There were 10 deaths, 6 in Group I (bleed related, 1) and 4 in Group II (bleed related, 1); the actuarial probability of survival was comparable (P = 0.39). EVL and combination therapy are equally effective in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients. EVL is more effective than drug therapy in the prevention of rebleeds in patients with NCPH and, hence, recommended. However, in view of the small number of NCPH patients, further studies are needed before this can be stated conclusively.
内镜下静脉曲张结扎术(EVL)和药物治疗在预防静脉曲张再出血方面均有效。两者之间的比较较少,且仅在肝硬化患者中进行。这项前瞻性随机对照试验比较了EVL与药物治疗(普萘洛尔+硝酸异山梨酯)在预防肝硬化和非肝硬化门静脉高压(NCPH)患者食管静脉曲张再出血中的效果。137例静脉曲张出血患者被随机分为EVL组(I组;n = 71)或药物治疗组(II组;n = 66)。在I组中,每2周进行一次EVL,直至静脉曲张闭塞。在II组中,给予普萘洛尔(剂量足以将心率降至55次/分钟/最大耐受剂量)和硝酸异山梨酯(递增剂量至20 mg,每日两次)。I组和II组患者的基线特征、随访时间(12.4个月对11.1个月)、肝硬化和非肝硬化患者比例[50例(70.4%)和21例(29.6%)对51例(77.3%)和15例(22.7%)]以及Child A级(35例对27例)、B级(26例对28例)和C级(9例对11例)的频率具有可比性。普萘洛尔的平均每日剂量为109±46 mg,硝酸异山梨酯为34±11 mg,在肝硬化和NCPH患者中相当。I组有10例患者发生上消化道出血(5例来自食管静脉曲张),II组有18例患者发生上消化道出血(15例来自食管静脉曲张)(P = 0.06)。24个月时食管静脉曲张再出血的精算概率在I组为22%,在II组为37%(P = 0.02)。与Child A/B级肝硬化患者相比,Child C级患者出血的概率显著更高(P = 0.02)。亚组分析显示,在NCPH患者中,24个月时I组出血的精算概率显著低于II组(25%对37%;P = 0.01)。在肝硬化患者中,I组和II组患者再出血的概率没有差异(P = 0.74)。在II组中,25.7%的患者有药物治疗的不良反应,9%的患者因严重不良反应不得不停用普萘洛尔,无人需要停用硝酸异山梨酯。共有10例死亡,I组6例(1例与出血相关),II组4例(1例与出血相关);生存的精算概率具有可比性(P = 0.39)。EVL和联合治疗在预防肝硬化患者静脉曲张再出血方面同样有效。在预防NCPH患者再出血方面,EVL比药物治疗更有效,因此推荐使用。然而,鉴于NCPH患者数量较少,在可以得出最终结论之前还需要进一步研究。