Suppr超能文献

内镜注射硬化疗法与内镜下静脉曲张结扎术治疗食管静脉曲张的前瞻性研究

A Prospective Study of Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy and Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in the Treatment of Esophageal Varices.

作者信息

Ali Syed Mohsin, Wu Shanbin, Xu Hongwei, Liu Hui, Hao Jinghua, Qin Chengyong

机构信息

1 Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University , Jinan, China .

2 Qianfoshan Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University , Jinan, China .

出版信息

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Apr;27(4):333-341. doi: 10.1089/lap.2016.0436. Epub 2016 Oct 24.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, we compared the EIS and EVL in 124 patients who had endoscopically proved bleeding from esophageal varices. According to different treatment methods, they were randomly divided into the EIS and the EVL groups. Sixty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 60 with ligation. The patients were followed for a mean of 2 years, during which we determined the incidence of complications and recurrences of bleeding and the number of treatment sessions needed to eradicate varices, mortality, and survival.

RESULTS

Active bleeding at the first treatment was controlled by EIS in 19 of 19 patients and by EVL in 16 of 16 patients. The likelihood of early rebleeding was slightly smaller in the patients treated with EIS (7.8% versus 11.7%, P = .47). However, late rebleeding rate was slightly more in EIS patients (28.1% versus 23.3%, P = .54) without statistical significance. The rate of eradication of varices in the EIS group was slightly lower than in the EVL group (79.7% versus 86.7%, P = .30). There were also no statistically significant differences in mortality (1.6% versus 3.3%, P = .61) or survival rate (71.9% versus 78.3%, P = .41) (all P > .05) after EIS and EVL. However, fever in the EIS group was significantly higher compared to that of in the EVL group (n = 17, 26.6% versus n = 6, 10.0%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EIS and EVL produce excellent results, are safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable for EVB with minimum complications and obviate need for subsequent procedures in the short term. To make better choice, we should consider the hospital conditions, operator experience, and the characteristics of esophageal varices.

摘要

引言

本研究旨在比较内镜注射硬化疗法(EIS)与内镜下静脉曲张结扎术(EVL)治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血(EVB)的有效性和安全性。

患者与方法

在这项前瞻性研究中,我们比较了124例经内镜证实为食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者的EIS和EVL治疗效果。根据不同治疗方法,将他们随机分为EIS组和EVL组。64例患者接受硬化治疗,60例接受结扎治疗。患者平均随访2年,在此期间我们确定了并发症和再出血的发生率、消除静脉曲张所需的治疗次数、死亡率和生存率。

结果

首次治疗时,19例接受EIS治疗的患者中有19例活动性出血得到控制,16例接受EVL治疗的患者中有16例得到控制。接受EIS治疗患者的早期再出血可能性略低(7.8%对11.7%,P = 0.47)。然而,EIS组患者的晚期再出血率略高(28.1%对23.3%,P = 0.54),无统计学意义。EIS组的静脉曲张消除率略低于EVL组(79.7%对86.7%,P = 0.30)。EIS和EVL治疗后的死亡率(1.6%对3.3%,P = 0.61)或生存率(71.9%对78.3%,P = 0.41)也无统计学差异(所有P > 0.05)。然而,EIS组的发热率明显高于EVL组(n = 17,26.6%对n = 6,10.0%,P = 0.02)。

结论

EIS和EVL均能产生良好效果,安全、有效、可行且可接受,并发症最少,短期内无需后续手术。为做出更好的选择,我们应考虑医院条件、术者经验以及食管静脉曲张的特点。

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