Suppr超能文献

内镜下静脉曲张注射硬化疗法与套扎术治疗食管静脉曲张出血的比较:一项前瞻性随机试验。

Comparison of endoscopic variceal injection sclerotherapy and ligation for the treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: a prospective randomized trial.

作者信息

Hou M C, Lin H C, Kuo B I, Chen C H, Lee F Y, Lee S D

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Veterans General Hospital-Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.

出版信息

Hepatology. 1995 Jun;21(6):1517-22.

PMID:7768494
Abstract

To determine the efficacy of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) and ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding, 134 cirrhotic patients were randomized to receive either treatment. The clinical and endoscopic characteristics were similar in both groups. Active bleeding was controlled with ligation (20 of 20) as efficiently as with sclerotherapy (14 of 16). Elective sclerotherapy consumed less time than ligation (7.9 +/- 1.8 minutes vs. 11.5 +/- 2.7 minutes, P < .001), but there was no difference between emergent sclerotherapy (14.5 +/- 5.8 minutes) and ligation (14.9 +/- 4.1 minutes). Ligation reduced one grade of variceal size more quickly than sclerotherapy (1.1 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.0 +/- 1.7 session, P < .001). The rebleeding rate was lower with ligation (13 of 67 vs. 28 of 67, P < .01). Esophageal ulcer was the most common source of rebleeding. Recurrence of varices appears more probable with ligation (P = .079). The complication rate was higher with sclerotherapy (15 of 67 vs. 3 of 67, P < .01), with esophageal stricture being the most common cause. Survival rate was the same in both groups even after stratifying patients into good and poor hepatic reserve groups. Hepatic failure was the major cause of death, followed by exsanguination. In summary, EVL was superior to EVS regarding rebleeding and complications but not in other aspects such as time consumption in elective treatment and recurrence of varices. Substantial results for long-term follow-up are required before conclusion of the treatment of choice.

摘要

为确定内镜下硬化疗法(EVS)和套扎术(EVL)治疗食管静脉曲张出血的疗效,将134例肝硬化患者随机分组接受其中一种治疗。两组的临床和内镜特征相似。套扎术(20例中的20例)控制活动性出血的效果与硬化疗法(16例中的14例)一样有效。择期硬化疗法所需时间比套扎术少(7.9±1.8分钟对11.5±2.7分钟,P<0.001),但急诊硬化疗法(14.5±5.8分钟)与套扎术(14.9±4.1分钟)之间无差异。套扎术使静脉曲张大小降低一级的速度比硬化疗法更快(1.1±0.4次对2.0±1.7次,P<0.001)。套扎术的再出血率较低(67例中的13例对67例中的28例,P<0.01)。食管溃疡是最常见的再出血原因。静脉曲张复发在套扎术后似乎更有可能(P=0.079)。硬化疗法的并发症发生率较高(67例中的15例对67例中的3例,P<0.01),食管狭窄是最常见原因。即使将患者分为肝储备良好和不良两组后,两组的生存率仍相同。肝衰竭是主要死亡原因,其次是失血。总之,在再出血和并发症方面,EVL优于EVS,但在其他方面,如择期治疗的时间消耗和静脉曲张复发方面则不然。在确定首选治疗方法之前,需要长期随访的大量结果。

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