Wang Jing, Zhang Xiaohua, Zhao Shulei
Department of Infectious Diseases.
Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jun 12;99(24):e20721. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020721.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) versus direct EIS in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.This retrospective study included patients with cirrhosis and esophageal variceal bleeding who underwent EIS with or without the use of a transparent cap at Shandong Provincial Hospital between December 2014 and April 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (EIS with transparent cap, n = 50) and Group B (direct EIS, n = 45). Data collected included patients' demographics, procedure details, and rates of variceal eradication, variceal rebleeding, variceal recurrence, and survival during the follow-up period. All data were expressed as mean ± SD. Quantitative variables were compared with Student t test; qualitative variables were compared with the Fisher exact test or chi-square test. P values less than .05 were considered significant.The mean follow-up duration was similar in both groups (16.3 ± 10.2 mo in Group A and 15.5 ± 9.5 mo in Group B). The volume of sclerosant (64.86 ± 10.62 vs 104.73 ± 21.25 ml, P = .044), mean number of sessions (2.37 ± 1.15 vs 5.70 ± 1.57, P = .042), time required to perform endoscopic treatment (6.57 ± 1.50 vs 11.22 ± 2.29 minutes, P = .049), and time to initial esophageal varices eradication (5.43 ± 1.38 vs 8.93 ± 1.5 wk, P = .041) were significantly smaller in the cap-assisted EIS group than in the direct EIS group. The probability of variceal recurrence and rebleeding was significantly higher in the direct EIS group than in the cap-assisted EIS group (14% versus 35.6% and 20% versus 40%). Only 22 patients (44%) developed complications in the cap-assisted group versus 30 patients (66.7%) in the EIS group (P = .039). The probability of survival was similar in both groups (86% versus 75.6%, P = .133).Modified EIS with the use of a transparent cap resulted in lower rates of esophageal variceal recurrence, rebleeding, and complications, compared with direct EIS.
本研究旨在比较帽辅助内镜注射硬化疗法(EIS)与直接EIS治疗肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张出血的疗效和安全性。这项回顾性研究纳入了2014年12月至2017年4月期间在山东省立医院接受了使用或未使用透明帽的EIS治疗的肝硬化和食管静脉曲张出血患者。患者分为两组:A组(使用透明帽的EIS,n = 50)和B组(直接EIS,n = 45)。收集的数据包括患者的人口统计学资料、操作细节以及随访期间的静脉曲张根除率、静脉曲张再出血率、静脉曲张复发率和生存率。所有数据均表示为均值±标准差。定量变量采用Student t检验进行比较;定性变量采用Fisher精确检验或卡方检验进行比较。P值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。两组的平均随访时间相似(A组为16.3±10.2个月,B组为15.5±9.5个月)。硬化剂用量(64.86±10.62 vs 104.73±21.25 ml,P = 0.044)、平均治疗次数(2.37±1.15 vs 5.70±1.57,P = 0.042)、内镜治疗所需时间(6.57±1.50 vs 11.22±2.29分钟,P = 0.049)以及首次食管静脉曲张根除时间(5.43±1.38 vs 8.93±1.5周,P = 0.041),帽辅助EIS组均显著低于直接EIS组。直接EIS组的静脉曲张复发和再出血概率显著高于帽辅助EIS组(分别为14%对35.6%和20%对40%)。帽辅助组仅有22例患者(44%)出现并发症,而EIS组为30例患者(66.7%)(P = 0.039)。两组的生存率相似(86%对75.6%,P = 0.133)。与直接EIS相比,使用透明帽的改良EIS导致食管静脉曲张复发、再出血和并发症的发生率更低。