Terés J, Baroni R, Bordas J M, Visa J, Pera C, Rodés J
J Hepatol. 1987 Apr;4(2):159-67. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(87)80075-2.
Seventy consecutive cirrhotic patients with persistent or recurrent variceal bleeding were included in a clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of portacaval shunt (PCS) and stapler transection (ST) in patients with low surgical risk, and of stapler transection and endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) in patients with high surgical risk. To classify the patients into low- and high-risk groups a new scoring system was used, based on an analysis of factors influencing operative mortality in an earlier series of emergency portacaval shunt. Thirty-eight low-risk patients were randomly allocated for treatment with portacaval shunt (19 patients) or stapler transection (19 patients), and 32 high-risk patients for stapler transection (17 patients) or ES (15 patients). The operative mortality of patients treated by PCS was close to that expected according to retrospective data, this indicating that the proposed scoring system is highly discriminant. In low-risk patients, portacaval shunt evidenced greater haemostatic efficacy and fewer complications than stapler transection. However, hepatic encephalopathy during follow-up was more frequent in the portacaval shunt group and there were no significant differences in operative mortality and long-term survival between the two groups. In high-risk patients, stapler transection and sclerotherapy had a similar haemostatic efficacy, operative mortality and long-term survival. However, sclerotherapy occasioned fewer complications than stapler transection. Our results motivate us to recommend stapler transection for low-risk patients and to consider sclerotherapy as an alternative for high-risk patients in the emergency treatment of uncontrolled variceal bleeding.
七十例连续的持续性或复发性静脉曲张出血的肝硬化患者被纳入一项临床试验,以比较门腔分流术(PCS)和吻合器横断术(ST)在手术风险低的患者中的疗效和安全性,以及吻合器横断术和内镜硬化疗法(ES)在手术风险高的患者中的疗效和安全性。为了将患者分为低风险和高风险组,使用了一种新的评分系统,该系统基于对早期一系列急诊门腔分流术影响手术死亡率的因素的分析。38例低风险患者被随机分配接受门腔分流术治疗(19例患者)或吻合器横断术治疗(19例患者),32例高风险患者接受吻合器横断术治疗(17例患者)或内镜硬化疗法治疗(15例患者)。接受门腔分流术治疗的患者的手术死亡率接近根据回顾性数据预期的死亡率,这表明所提出的评分系统具有高度的区分性。在低风险患者中,门腔分流术比吻合器横断术显示出更高的止血效果和更少的并发症。然而,随访期间门腔分流术组肝性脑病更常见,两组在手术死亡率和长期生存率方面没有显著差异。在高风险患者中,吻合器横断术和硬化疗法具有相似的止血效果、手术死亡率和长期生存率。然而,硬化疗法引起的并发症比吻合器横断术少。我们的结果促使我们推荐对低风险患者采用吻合器横断术,并考虑将硬化疗法作为高风险患者在急诊治疗无法控制的静脉曲张出血时的一种替代方法。