N-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Band Ligation for Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis by comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute GVH in liver cirrhotic patients with or without concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage
Procedure: cyanoacrylate injection to treat gastric variceal hemorrhage
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||A Randomized Trial of Endoscopic Treatment of Acute Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage: N-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Band Ligation|
- Comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) in liver cirrhotic patients
Gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) has a poorer prognosis than esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, data on its optimal treatment are limited. We designed a prospective study to compare the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (GVL) and endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection (GVO). Liver cirrhotic patients with or without concomitant hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC) and patients presenting with acute GVH were randomized into two treatment groups. Forty-eight patients received GVL, and another 49 patients received GVO. Both treatments were equally successful in controlling active bleeding (14/15 vs. 14/15, P = 1.000). More of the patients who underwent GVL had GV rebleeding (GVL vs. GVO, 21/48 vs. 11/49; P = .044). The 2-year and 3-year cumulative rate of GV rebleeding were 63.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.5%-81.7%), 72.3% (95% CI, 51.3%-93.3%) for GVL and 26.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-41.1%), 26.8% (95% CI, 12.5%-41.1%) for GVO; P = .0143, log-rank test. The rebleeding risk of GVL sustained throughout the entire follow-up period. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that concomitance with HCC (relative hazard: 2.453, 95% CI: 1.036-5.806, P = .041) and the treatment method (GVL vs. GVO, relative hazard: 2.660, 95% CI: 1.167-6.061, P = .020) were independent factors predictive of GV rebleeding. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. Severe complications due to these two treatments were rare. In conclusion, the efficacy of GVL to control active GVH appears to have no difference with GVO, but GVO is associated with a lower GV rebleeding rate.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00292331
|Ming-Chih Hou, M.D.|
|Taipei, Taiwan, 11217|
|Principal Investigator:||Ming-Chih Hou, M.D.||Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan|