Suppr超能文献

EUS 引导下细针注射优于直接内镜注射 2-辛基氰基丙烯酸酯治疗胃静脉曲张出血。

EUS-guided fine needle injection is superior to direct endoscopic injection of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate for the treatment of gastric variceal bleeding.

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1837-1845. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6462-z. Epub 2018 Sep 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate into gastric varices may be performed by EUS-guided fine needle injection (EUS-FNI) or direct endoscopic injection (DEI). The aim of this study is to compare the rate of recurrent GV bleeding and adverse events between DEI and EUS-FNI for treatment of GV.

METHODS

In a single-center study, a retrospective cohort of patients with actively/recently bleeding or high-risk GV treated with DEI were compared with a prospective cohort of similar patients treated with EUS-FNI. Repeat endoscopy after index treatment was performed 3 months later or earlier if rebleeding occurred. The main outcomes assessed were rates of GV or overall rebleeding and adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty patients (mean age 57.2 ± 9.1 years, 73% male) and 64 patients (mean age 58.0 ± 12.5 years, 52% male) underwent DEI and EUS-FNI, respectively. Compared to the DEI group, the frequency of isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1) were higher (p < 0.001) but MELD scores were lower (p = 0.004) in the EUS-FNI group. At index endoscopy, EUS-FNI utilized a lower mean volume of cyanoacrylate (2.0 ± 0.8 mL vs. 3.3 ± 1.3 mL; p < 0.001) and injected a greater number of varices (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.4; p < 0.001) compared to DEI. Overall, GV rebleeding [5/57 (8.8%) vs. 9/38 (23.7%); p = 0.045] and non-GV-related gastrointestinal bleeding [7/64 (10.9%) vs. 11/40 (27.5%); p = 0.030] were less frequent in the EUS-FNI group compared to the DEI group, respectively. Adverse event rates were similar (20.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.723).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided CYA injection of active or recently bleeding GV in patients with portal hypertension appears to decrease the rate of GV rebleeding despite injection of more varices and less CYA volume during the initial endoscopic procedure. Adverse events are similar between the two groups. EUS-FNI appears to be the preferred strategy for treatment of these patients.

摘要

背景

内镜下向胃静脉曲张内注射氰基丙烯酸酯可以通过超声内镜引导下细针注射(EUS-FNI)或直接内镜下注射(DEI)来完成。本研究的目的是比较 DEI 和 EUS-FNI 治疗胃静脉曲张(GV)时复发性 GV 出血和不良事件的发生率。

方法

在单中心研究中,对接受 DEI 治疗的活动性/近期出血或高危 GV 的回顾性队列患者与接受 EUS-FNI 治疗的类似前瞻性队列患者进行比较。如果再次出血,在指数治疗后 3 个月或更早进行重复内镜检查。评估的主要结局是 GV 或总体再出血和不良事件的发生率。

结果

40 例患者(平均年龄 57.2±9.1 岁,73%为男性)和 64 例患者(平均年龄 58.0±12.5 岁,52%为男性)分别接受了 DEI 和 EUS-FNI 治疗。与 DEI 组相比,EUS-FNI 组孤立性胃静脉曲张 1 型(IGV1)的频率更高(p<0.001),但 MELD 评分更低(p=0.004)。在指数内镜检查时,EUS-FNI 平均使用的氰基丙烯酸酯体积较小(2.0±0.8 mL 比 3.3±1.3 mL;p<0.001),注射的静脉曲张数量较多(1.6±0.7 比 1.1±0.4;p<0.001)。总体而言,GV 再出血[5/57(8.8%)比 9/38(23.7%);p=0.045]和非 GV 相关胃肠道出血[7/64(10.9%)比 11/40(27.5%);p=0.030]在 EUS-FNI 组中均较 DEI 组更为少见。不良事件发生率相似(20.3%比 17.5%,p=0.723)。

结论

在门静脉高压症患者中,超声内镜引导下 CYA 注射活动性或近期出血的 GV 似乎可以降低 GV 再出血的发生率,尽管在初始内镜操作中注射了更多的静脉曲张和更少的 CYA 体积。两组的不良事件发生率相似。EUS-FNI 似乎是治疗这些患者的首选策略。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验