Try our beta test site
IMPORTANT: Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health. Talk with a trusted healthcare professional before volunteering for a study. Read more...

N-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Band Ligation for Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage

This study has been completed.
Information provided by:
Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan Identifier:
First received: February 14, 2006
Last updated: NA
Last verified: February 2006
History: No changes posted
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).

Condition Intervention Phase
Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage
Procedure: cyanoacrylate injection to treat gastric variceal hemorrhage
Phase 3

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
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

Resource links provided by NLM:

Further study details as provided by Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Comparing the efficacy of cyanoacrylate injection (GVO) and band ligation (GVL) in the treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) in liver cirrhotic patients

Estimated Enrollment: 120
Detailed Description:
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.

Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 80 Years   (Adult, Senior)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No

Inclusion Criteria:

* Patients who were aged between 18 and 80 years and had endoscopy-proven acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Cases with concomitant large GV and large EV, but without stigmata of recent bleeding
  • Cases had previous endoscopic, surgical treatment or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for GVH
  • Cases had a terminal illness of any major organ system, like heart failure, uremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or nonhepatic malignancy
  Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its identifier: NCT00292331

Ming-Chih Hou, M.D.
Taipei, Taiwan, 11217
Sponsors and Collaborators
Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
Principal Investigator: Ming-Chih Hou, M.D. Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
  More Information Identifier: NCT00292331     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: VGH-88-B251
Study First Received: February 14, 2006
Last Updated: February 14, 2006

Keywords provided by Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan:
gastric varices
liver cirrhosis
hepatocelluar carcinoma

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Pathologic Processes processed this record on May 25, 2017