Yue Xiaofen, Wang Zeyu, Li Jianbiao, Guo Xiaoling, Zhang Xiehua, Li Shengnan, Lv Hongcheng, Hu Dongsheng, Ji Xiangjun, Li Shuang, Lu Wei
Department of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Liver Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatology, Tianjin, China.
Front Surg. 2022 Oct 14;9:928873. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.928873. eCollection 2022.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) vs. EVL combined with endoscopic injection sclerosis (EIS) in the therapy of esophageal varices.
Patients from January 2017 to August 2021 who received EVL alone (control group) or EVL plus EIS (intervention group) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Efficacy, including rebleeding (clinically hematemesis or melena, confirmed by endoscopy as esophagogastric varices bleeding), variceal recurrence rate (the presence of esophagogastric varices which is needed to be treated again) the number of sessions performed to complete eradication of varices, and safety (adverse events) were compared. The variceal recurrence-associated factors were derived by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
The variceal recurrence and rebleeding rate in the intervention group showed significantly lower than the control group (2.6% vs 10.3%, = 0.006 and 20.7% vs 37.5%, = 0.029, = 0.006, respectively, in the 12-month follow-up). The adverse events (fever, chest pain, swallowing, and esophageal stricture) showed no significant difference between the two groups (> 0.05). Further research showed that the efficacy of the intervention group was better than the control group only achieved in prophylactically endoscopic treatment patients. The diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices co-exist showed significant effects on variceal recurrence in intervention group [odds ratio (OR) = 15.856; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.709-160.143; = 0.016 and OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.42-20.028; = 0.021; respectively].
The intervention group may obtain lower recurrence, rebleeding rate, and fewer sessions performed to complete eradication of varices (number of sessions) and similar incidence of adverse events, especially for prophylactically treatment. Among the intervention group, the diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices were closely associated with variceal recurrence.
本研究旨在评估食管静脉曲张结扎术(EVL)与EVL联合内镜注射硬化术(EIS)治疗食管静脉曲张的疗效及不良事件。
本回顾性研究纳入了2017年1月至2021年8月期间单独接受EVL(对照组)或EVL加EIS(干预组)的患者。比较疗效,包括再出血(临床呕血或黑便,经内镜证实为食管胃静脉曲张出血)、静脉曲张复发率(需要再次治疗的食管胃静脉曲张的存在情况)、完成静脉曲张根除所需的治疗次数,以及安全性(不良事件)。通过单因素和多因素逻辑回归分析得出静脉曲张复发的相关因素。
在12个月的随访中,干预组的静脉曲张复发率和再出血率显著低于对照组(分别为2.6%对10.3%,P = 0.006;20.7%对37.5%,P = 0.029,P = 0.006)。两组的不良事件(发热、胸痛、吞咽困难和食管狭窄)无显著差异(P > 0.05)。进一步研究表明,干预组的疗效仅在预防性内镜治疗患者中优于对照组。食管静脉曲张直径和并存胃静脉曲张对干预组的静脉曲张复发有显著影响[比值比(OR)= 15.856;95%置信区间(CI),1.709 - 160.143;P = 0.016和OR = 4.5;95% CI,1.42 - 20.028;P = 0.021]。
干预组可能获得更低的复发率、再出血率,完成静脉曲张根除所需的治疗次数更少,且不良事件发生率相似,尤其是在预防性治疗方面。在干预组中,食管静脉曲张和胃静脉曲张的直径与静脉曲张复发密切相关。