Suppr超能文献

53 年肝硬化出血性食管静脉曲张急症门腔分流术随机临床试验经验:1958-2011 年。

Fifty-three years' experience with randomized clinical trials of emergency portacaval shunt for bleeding esophageal varices in Cirrhosis: 1958-2011.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego.

出版信息

JAMA Surg. 2014 Feb;149(2):155-69. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4045.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) consists mainly of endoscopic and pharmacologic measures, with transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunt (TIPS) performed when bleeding is not controlled. Surgical shunt has been relegated to salvage. At the University of California, San Diego, Medical Center, our group has conducted 10 studies of emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) during 46 years.

OBJECTIVE

To describe 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted from 1988 to 2011 in unselected consecutive patients who received emergency treatment for BEV.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In RCT No. 1, a total of 211 unselected consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV were randomized to emergency endoscopic sclerotherapy (EEST) (n=106) or EPCS (n=105). In RCT No. 2, a total of 154 unselected consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV were randomized to TIPS (n=78) or EPCS (n=76). Diagnostic workup was completed within 6 hours of initial contact, and primary treatment was initiated within 8 to 12 hours. Regular follow-up for up to 10 years was accomplished in 100% of the patients.

INTERVENTIONS

In RCT No. 1, EEST or EPCS; in RCT No. 2, TIPS or EPCS.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 2 groups were compared with regard to survival, control of bleeding, portal-systemic encephalopathy, and direct cost of care. RESULTS Distribution in Child risk classes was almost identical. One-third of patients were in Child class C. Permanent control of bleeding was achieved by EEST in only 20% of the patients and by TIPS in only 22%. In contrast, EPCS permanently controlled bleeding in 97% and 100% of the patients in RCT No. 2 and RCT No. 1, respectively (P<.001). Survival was significantly greater following EPCS than after EEST and TIPS (P<.001). Median survival was more than 10 years following EPCS compared with 1.99 years after TIPS. Occlusion of TIPS was demonstrated in 84% of the patients, 63% of whom underwent TIPS revision, which failed in 80% of the cases. Recurrent portal-systemic encephalopathy developed in 35% of the patients who underwent EEST and 61% of those who received TIPS. In contrast, portal-systemic encephalopathy occurred in 15% of the patients who received EPCS in RCT No. 1 and 21% of those in RCT No. 2. Direct costs of care were 5 to 7 times greater in the EEST ($168100) and TIPS ($264800) groups than in the EPCS ($39000) group (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Emergency portacaval shunt permanently stopped variceal bleeding, almost never became occluded, accomplished 5 times the long-term survival than EEST or TIPS, and was much less costly than EEST or TIPS. The widespread practice of using EPCS mainly as salvage for failure of endoscopic therapy or TIPS is not supported by the definitive results of these long-term RCTs in unselected patients with cirrhosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00690027 and NCT00734227.

摘要

重要性

食管静脉曲张出血(BEV)的紧急治疗主要包括内镜和药物治疗,如果出血无法控制,则进行经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)。手术分流已退居二线。在加利福尼亚大学圣地亚哥医学中心,我们的团队在 46 年期间进行了 10 项紧急门腔分流术(EPCS)的研究。

目的

描述 2011 年进行的 2 项随机临床试验(RCT),这些 RCT 纳入了未经选择的连续接受 BEV 紧急治疗的患者。

设计、地点和参与者:在 RCT1 中,总共纳入了 211 名未经选择的连续患有肝硬化和急性 BEV 的患者,他们被随机分配接受紧急内镜硬化治疗(EEST)(n=106)或 EPCS(n=105)。在 RCT2 中,总共纳入了 154 名未经选择的连续患有肝硬化和急性 BEV 的患者,他们被随机分配接受 TIPS(n=78)或 EPCS(n=76)。诊断检查在初次接触后 6 小时内完成,主要治疗在 8-12 小时内开始。在 100%的患者中完成了长达 10 年的定期随访。

干预措施

在 RCT1 中,EEST 或 EPCS;在 RCT2 中,TIPS 或 EPCS。

主要结局和测量

比较两组患者的生存率、出血控制、门体系统脑病和护理的直接成本。结果:Child 风险类别分布几乎相同。三分之一的患者属于 Child 类 C。EEST 仅使 20%的患者和 TIPS 仅使 22%的患者永久控制出血。相比之下,EPCS 在 RCT2 和 RCT1 中分别使 97%和 100%的患者永久控制出血(P<.001)。EPCS 后的生存率明显大于 EEST 和 TIPS(P<.001)。与 TIPS 后的 1.99 年相比,EPCS 后中位生存时间超过 10 年。在 84%的患者中发现 TIPS 闭塞,其中 63%的患者进行了 TIPS 修正,其中 80%的病例失败。在接受 EEST 的患者中,35%出现复发性门体系统脑病,在接受 TIPS 的患者中,61%出现门体系统脑病。相比之下,在 RCT1 和 RCT2 中,分别有 15%和 21%的接受 EPCS 的患者出现门体系统脑病。护理的直接成本在 EEST($168100)和 TIPS($264800)组中是 EPCS($39000)组的 5-7 倍(P<.001)。

结论和相关性

紧急门腔分流术可永久性停止静脉曲张出血,几乎从未发生闭塞,与 EEST 或 TIPS 相比,可实现 5 倍的长期生存率,且成本远低于 EEST 或 TIPS。广泛使用 EPCS 主要作为内镜治疗或 TIPS 失败的抢救手段的做法,并没有得到这些针对未经选择的肝硬化患者的长期 RCT 的明确结果的支持。

试验注册

clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT00690027 和 NCT00734227。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验