食管静脉曲张出血硬化治疗十三年回顾

目的评价食管静脉曲张出血硬化治疗疗效.方法对我院1987年4月至2000年5月行食管静脉曲张硬化治疗(EVS)的1010例门脉高压食管静脉曲张出血患者,进行回顾分析.肝硬化患者850例,肝癌160例,共行EVS3203例次,急诊602例次,择期2601例次,追加治疗502例次,710例肝硬化患者首次进行EVS(3.18±1.1)次,对579例肝硬化患者进行了3～157个月的随访,平均随访时间为(42.47±32.78)个月.肝硬化患者850例,其中治疗结束时706例行胃镜检查.结果1.全组急诊止血率为970%,治疗并发症为13.4%,死亡率为1.8%.2.肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张消失和基本消失率为84.1%,远期再发出血率为23.7%,生存率按Kaplan-Meier法计算,1、3、5、10年分别为(95.8±0.8)%、(86.1±1.6)%、(745±2.4)%和(53.6±3.8)%.结论EVS对食管静脉曲张出血仍是一重要治疗方法.     

EVS、EVS+EVL续贯EVS和EVL续贯EVS治疗食管静脉曲张的疗效比较

目的:比较内镜下食管静脉曲张硬化治疗(EVS)、EVS EVS加套扎(EVL)续贯EVS和EVL续贯EVS治疗食管静脉曲张的疗效.方法:乙型病毒性肝炎肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者130例,随机分为EVS治疗组50例,EVS EVL续贯EVS组40例,EVL续贯EVS组40例,比较3组食管静脉曲张的消失率、并发症、硬化剂总用量,患者住院天数和远期复发出血率.结果:三组患者治疗后食管静脉曲张消失率无差异;EVS组硬化剂应用总量、治疗次数和住院天数都高于EVS EVL续贯EVS组,EVL续贯EVS组(95.64±37.51 mL vs 55.90±38.93 mL,32.15±26.97 mL;3.64±1.32 vs 1.85±1.18,1.35±0.88;25.92±8.69 vs 20.6±5.00 d,17.55±4.62 d;P均<0.05),而后两组之间没有差异;EVL续贯EVS组食管静脉曲张复发率高于另外两组(45% vs 12%,20%,P<0.05),而后两组间没有差异.3组间再出血发生率及并发症的发生率没有差别.结论:EVL续贯EVS和EVS EVL续贯EVS在食管静脉曲张的治疗上优于单纯EVS,尤其后者兼具EVL和EVS的优点.     

食管静脉曲张结扎与结扎加硬化治疗的对照研究

为比较内镜下食管静脉曲张结扎治疗(EVL)和EVL加续贯食管静脉硬化治疗(EVS)的疗效，选择2000年10月至2002年10月59例肝炎肝硬化食管静脉曲张患者随机分为EVL组和EVL EVS组，进行对照研究，重点比较两组食管静脉曲张消失率、再出血率和死亡率。     

内镜下结扎联合硬化术治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血11例疗效观察

对53例食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者行内镜下曲张静脉结扎术（EVL）,其中11例加行硬化术（EVS）。53例患者共行93次752处结扎,11例行EVS患者行17次32处硬化。结果单纯行EVL术者近期疗效明显,但远期疗效欠佳,1a再出血9例;行EVL＋EVS术者1a无再出血病例。认为EVL＋EVS治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张出血远期疗效确切。     

内镜套扎加硬化治疗对食管胃底静脉曲张的疗效

食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血是肝硬化门静脉高压症的严重并发症,由于多数患者伴有严重肝功能损害,死亡率和再出血率高。近年来,人们已找到许多方法有效地预防和治疗急性静脉曲张破裂出血,内镜多环套扎术(EndoscopicMultiple Ligation,EML)和内镜下食管静脉曲张硬化术(En-doseopic Variceal Sclerotheraphy,EVS)便是其中两种。1997年9月以来,我们采用EML加EVS治疗食管胃底静脉曲张,并尝试对无出血史者行预防性治疗,取得较好效果。     

奥曲肽预防食管静脉曲张硬化治疗后早期再出血的临床研究

背景：食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者经食管静脉曲张硬化治疗（EVS）后再出血发生率仍较高．是导致肝硬化门静脉高压患者死亡的重要原因之一，尤其是早期再出血。奥曲肽能降低门静脉压力。与EVS联合应用可能降低早期再出血发生率。目的：了解EVS加用奥曲肽后降低早期再出血发生率的情况，探讨影响早期再出血发生的因素。方法：80例食管胃静脉曲张患者被随机分为试验组和对照组，每组40例。两组患者均予择期或急诊EVS．根据食管静脉曲张消失情况行3～5次EVS，每隔7d治疗1次，静脉曲张消失或基本消失为一疗程结束。试验组于第1、2、3次EVS术后第4～6d加用奥曲肽治疗。结果：试验组EVS后有1例发生早期再出血，发生率为2．5％．对照组有7例发生早期再出血，发生率为17．5％，试验组早期再出血发生率显著低于对照组（P=0．028）。Logistic逐步回归分析显示奥曲肽对早期再出血发生率有显著影响（P=0．049）。结论：EVS联合奥曲肽治疗可降低EVS后早期再出血发生率。     

食管静脉曲张硬化与结扎加硬化治疗食管静脉曲张的对照研究

目的研究食管静脉曲张硬化与结扎防治出血的效果.方法60例乙型病毒性肝炎肝硬化、食管静脉曲张出血的病人分为两组,食管静脉硬化治疗(EVS)组30例,食管静脉结扎加硬化治疗(EVL+EVS)组30例,结果在EVS组和EVL+EVS组中,静脉曲张消失和基本消失者分别为28例(90%)和30例(100%),两组比较无显著差异.达到静脉曲张消失所需硬化治疗次数及硬化剂所用量,EVL+EVS组均明显少于EVS组,两组并发症发生率无显著差异.EVS组随访26.9±4.5个月,EVL+EVS组22.7±5.3个月,随访期食管静脉曲张复发率EVS、EVL+EVS组分别为9例(30%)和13例(43.3%),EVL+EVS组高于EVS组,反复出血分别为4例和3例.住院天数EVS组和EVL+EVS组分别为27.1±5.0和28.8±9.2天,两组无显著差异.所消耗结扎器、硬化剂和手术费用EVS组和EVL+EVS组分别为5378.50±899.00元和7703.33±2120.70元,两组比较P＜0.001,EVL+EVS组明显高于EVS组,结论本研究提示EVL+EVS较单一EVS无明显优越性.     

套扎与硬化对肝硬化食管静脉曲张疗效的Meta分析

目的 比较内镜下套扎(EVL)与硬化(EVS)对肝硬化食管静脉曲张的疗效.方法 检索维普数据库、万方数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库、Pubmed 1985年1月-2012年7月发表的有关内镜下EVL和EVS治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张的相关文献,采用RevMan 4.2进行Meta分析.结果 有9项前瞻性随机对照试验纳入研究.Meta分析结果显示,EVL治疗的再出血率低于EVS治疗(OR=0.52,95％ CI:0.32 ～0.85,P=0.009),并发症少于EVS治疗(OR=0.30,95％ CI:0.20 ～ 0.43,P＜0.00001),达到食管静脉曲张消失需要内镜治疗次数少于EVS治疗(WMD=-1.24,95％ CI:-2.09 ～-0.38,P=0.004),而食管静脉曲张复发率高于EVS治疗(OR =2.21,95％ CI:1.47 ～3.32,P=0.0001),在急诊止血率、静脉曲张消失率、死亡率方面,两组差异无统计学意义.结论 与EVS治疗相比,EVL治疗再出血率低、并发症少、食管静脉曲张消失所需治疗次数少,因此EVL疗效更好,可作为内镜下治疗食管静脉曲张的首选.     

内镜下聚桂醇硬化治疗重度食管静脉曲张破裂出血的效果观察

目的观察内镜下聚桂醇硬化治疗肝硬化重度食管静脉曲张破裂出血的近、远期疗效。方法回顾性分析石家庄市第五医院2011年1月-2014年12月期间因肝硬化门静脉高压重度食管静脉曲张破裂出血首次行内镜下聚桂醇硬化治疗的患者160例,分为急诊治疗组(n=66)和择期治疗组(n=94),对患者随访观察了1~5年,统计患者的止血成功率、近期再出血率、远期再出血率、并发症发生率等。计数资料2组间比较采用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率法,计量资料2组间比较采用t检验。结果急诊治疗组与择期治疗组止血成功率(98.48%vs 100.00%)、静脉曲张根除或基本消失率(74.24%vs 82.98%)、静脉曲张根除或基本消失时间[(21.4±0.3)d vs(20.5±0.3)d]、静脉曲张复发率(18.18%vs 15.96%)、静脉曲张复发时间[(17.0±1.8)月vs(19.2±2.3)月]、远期再出血率(33.33%vs 21.28%)及并发症发生率(22.73%vs 18.09%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P值均0.05),近期再出血率(9.09%vs 1.06%)差异有统计学意义(P=0.020)。随访期间,160例患者中共死亡8例(5.00%),其中急诊治疗组死亡5例(食管静脉曲张破裂出血1例、肝性脑病2例、多脏器功能衰竭1例、肝癌结节破裂出血1例),择期治疗组死亡3例(食管静脉曲张破裂出血1例、多脏器功能衰竭1例、肝癌结节破裂出血1例)。2组病死率比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.276)。结论内镜下聚桂醇硬化治疗重度食管静脉曲张破裂出血安全,近、远期疗效肯定,但需注意急诊治疗后近期再出血的发生。     

内镜下结扎与硬化剂联合治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张

内镜下结扎(EVL)和硬化剂(EVS)治疗食管静脉曲张的临床应用已日益普及.通过EVL和EVS治疗,可控制食管静脉曲张活动性出血,同时预防再出血,达到治疗目的.为了观察内镜下单纯结扎,结扎与硬化同步联合治疗食管静脉曲张疗效及优缺点,1996年1月至1998年12月的2年时间内,我院将30例食管静脉曲张破裂出血的患者随机分两组,分别应用上述方法进行治疗,现将结果报告如下.     

Prospective multicenter randomized trial comparing banding ligation with sclerotherapy of esophageal varices.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic variceal banding ligation (EVL), first described by Stiegmann in 1988, is now an accepted alternative to sclerotherapy (EVS) for esophageal varices with previous bleeding. However, results are conflicting in terms of complications, eradication, recurrence, rebleeding and mortality rate. We aimed to compare EVL with EVS in a prospective randomized trial in patients with previous esophageal bleeding proved by endoscopy. End points were rebleeding rate and death during a short (eradication period) or long-term follow-up (> 1 year). METHODOLOGY: One hundred patients (50 EVL, 50 EVS) were enrolled. Eradication rate, number of treatments needed to achieve eradication, recurrence of varices, rebleeding and complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the two groups regarding age, sex and Child class. One patient dropped out in the EVL group and 6 in the EVS group. Eradication was obtained in 44 (88%) with EVL and 41 (82%) with EVS with a mean of 3.41 and 5.29 treatments (p<0.001), respectively. Rebleeding occurred during eradication in 6 patients (12%) in the EVL group and 21 (42%) in the EVS group (p=0.001); after eradication, 7 patients (14%) rebled in the EVL group and 4 (8%) in the EVS group (not significant). Non-variceal bleeding was observed in 5 patients (2 EVL and 3 EVS) during follow-up. Two patients in the EVL group died after variceal rebleeding; 3 died of gastric bleeding; and, 15 from non-hemorrhagic events (8 EVL and 7 EVS). In the EVL group 14 patients had recurrent varices and 7 rebled; in the EVS group 11 recurred, with rebleeding in 5. Major complications were fewer in the EVL group (1 stenosis, 4 chronic ulcers) compared to 18 patients in the EVS group (9 stenosis and 9 chronic ulcers) (p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: EVL might be preferable to EVS for faster reduction and obliteration of varices, with a lower rate of complications and rebleeding before eradication. No differences were observed in recurrence.     

Improved long-term survival following complete eradication of esophageal varices by sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conflicting results have been reported concerning the effect of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy upon the long-term survival of cirrhotic patients with esophageal varix. The recurrence and rebleeding of esophageal varices seems to be an important factor influencing long-term survival. We investigated the long-term survival of patients after complete eradication of esophageal varices. METHODOLOGY: Forty patients treated by endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for acute esophageal variceal bleeding were studied. The recurrence rate of varices and the long-term survival of patients in whom complete eradication of esophageal varices was obtained were compared with those of patients in whom the eradication of varices was incomplete. RESULTS: The frequency of the recurrence/deterioration rate of varices and rebleeding in the complete eradication group was significantly lower than that in the incomplete eradication group (10.7% vs. 100%, 0% vs. 58.3%, respectively, p < 0.01). Accumulated 5-year survival rate of the complete eradication group was significantly higher than that of the incomplete eradication group (68.2% vs. 43.2%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Complete eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic injection sclerotherapy is effective both in preventing variceal re-bleeding and in improving the survival of cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices.     

Prevention of recurrent bleeding in cirrhotics with recent variceal hemorrhage: prospective, randomized comparison of propranolol and sclerotherapy

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic paravariceal sclerotherapy and oral propranolol in the prevention of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding, 78 cirrhotic patients were randomly assigned to either treatment after an endoscopically proven bleed from esophageal varices. After randomization, but before treatment had been started, a total of eight patients had to be withdrawn from the study due to early rebleeding (requiring emergency sclerotherapy) or violations of the protocol. Among the 70 patients analyzed (36 sclerotherapy, 34 propranolol), both treatment groups were comparable with respect to demographic, clinical and laboratory data. The groups also did not differ with respect to continued alcohol intake. Sclerotherapy was performed twice weekly using 1% polidocanol as the sclerosing agent until the varices were eradicated or well-covered by fibrous tissue. Propranolol was given twice daily at a dose reducing the resting heart rate by 25% (60 to 320 mg per day; mean +/- SD = 161 +/- 80 mg per day). Patients were followed for up to 2 years with visits at 3 monthly intervals (mean follow-up = sclerotherapy, 14 months; propranolol, 9.2 months). Life table analysis of patients without rebleeding from nonvariceal sites revealed a tendency in favor of propranolol; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance. No significant difference was observed between sclerotherapy and propranolol in the proportion of patients rebleeding from esophageal varices or from all sources of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Furthermore, survival was similar in both treatment groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

What is the aim of esophageal variceal sclerotherapy--prevention of rebleeding or complete obliteration of veins?

Endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) is highly effective in arresting active esophageal variceal bleeding. Subsequent repeated EVS sessions significantly reduce recurrence of bleeding; long-term survival is reported as prolonged or unaltered. In contrast, EVS for preventing first variceal bleeding (prophylactic sclerotherapy) is not recommended, even for high-risk patients, because it enhances mortality by significantly increasing the risk of bleeding in the treated group compared with controls. The risk of variceal rebleeding is maximum within 6 weeks of index bleeding; most patients who survive 6 weeks of variceal bleeding (with or without sclerotherapy) behave like patients who have never bled from varices. Thus, EVS continued beyond 6 weeks, to obliterate the veins completely, is akin to prophylactic sclerotherapy. Significant complications of EVS--its cost, discomfort to patient, and loss of doctor and patient time--should be weighed against doubtful benefit of continuing prolonged EVS beyond 6 weeks, just to completely obliterate esophageal veins. The possibility of better long-term survival with sclerotherapy limited to 6 weeks cannot be excluded, because prophylactic sclerotherapy shortens long-term survival.     

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

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.     

Course and Complications of Endoscopic Variceal Sclerotherapy: A Prospective Study of 50 Patients

Fifty consecutive patients with bleeding esophageal varices were treated with endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) using the free hand method and a flexible fiberoptic endoscope. During the study period, November 1981 through April 1984, 11 patients (22%) rebled after the initiations of EVS and six patients were lost to follow-up. Obliteration of esophageal varices was achieved in 14 patients and none of these patients rebled for a mean follow-up time of 305 days. Survival curves generated by Willcoxson life table analysis demonstrated 51% 1-year survival for all patients, 21% for Child's class C patients, and 100% for Child's A and B patients. The complications associated with EVS were ulcerations 78%, strictures 20%, fever 44%, and perforations 2%. This study indicates that EVS is a safe and effective treatment for acute variceal hemorrhage and obliteration of esophageal varices can be achieved. Once varices are obliterated rebleeding may not occur. Survival in Child's A and B patients may be improved with EVS but the survival in Child's C patients is unaffected.     

心得安单纯或联合使用在二级预防食管静脉曲张出血中的疗效比较

目的比较单纯心得安、套扎＋心得安、硬化剂＋心得安二级预防食管静脉曲张出血的疗效,探寻心得安二级预防食管静脉曲张出血的最佳组合。方法78例食管静脉曲张出血患者随机分成3组,每组26例,止血后分别给予心得安（心得安组）、套扎＋心得安（套扎组）、硬化剂＋心得安（硬化剂组）,比较各组12个月内再出血率、死亡率,以及各组门脉高压性胃病、胃底静脉曲张发生率、食管曲张静脉复发率。结果12个月内再出血率套扎组为30．77％,明显低于心得安组（53．85％）及硬化组（42．31％）（P均〈0．05）;套扎组和心得安组门脉高压性胃病及胃底静脉曲张发生率相似,都明显低于硬化组（P均〈0．05）;而食管静脉曲张再发率高于硬化组（P〈0．05）。结论在应用心得安的基础上进行套扎治疗可能是目前食管静脉曲张出血最有效的二级预防方法。     

急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的比较

目的比较食管静脉曲张破裂出血急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗的疗效和安全性。方法对210例食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者,急诊情况下行内镜下套扎或硬化治疗,并分析比较两组急诊止血成功率、近期再出血率、急诊治疗曲张静脉消失率、不良反应、并发症、病死率等情况。结果急诊止血成功率套扎组达95.4%,硬化组达96.0%;近期再出血率分别为4.8%和4.1%;套扎组急诊治疗曲张静脉消失率明显优于硬化组（P〈0.01）。两组不良反应、并发症及病死率无差别。临床疗效与肝功能呈正相关。结论急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗食管静脉曲张出血均为有效、安全的止血方法。临床上可结合患者实际情况综合考虑后选择。     

Endoscopic injection sclerosis in bleeding gastric varices

Ninety-two consecutive, nonrandomized patients with bleeding varices were prospectively studied using sclerotherapy to control and prevent rebleeding. During this study, nine patients with gastric variceal bleeding were identified. A gastric variceal subset is defined and represents a 10% incidence in this series. All patients presented with indexed gastric bleeding varices that subsequently accounted for 34 bleeding sessions. The units of blood per rebleeding episode, hospital days, cost, and outcome were markedly different from the esophageal variceal groups. Initial management of indexed bleeding episodes by sclerotherapy and Sengstaken-Blakemore tubes were comparable; however, the number of rebleeding episodes was much higher. There was poor control of rebleeding with an associated higher rebleeding mortality and complications secondary to repeated sclerotherapy and Sengstaken-Blakemore tube use. In 37% of the patients, rebleeding was the direct result of gastric ulcerations at the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy site. The survival curve of this group was much lower than esophageal variceal bleeders. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy in patients with bleeding gastric varices offers only temporary control of bleeding, and the high incidence of severe early rebleeding requires consideration of alternative methods for management or modified sclerotherapy techniques.     

A clinical controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy for repeated esophageal variceal bleeding

Thirty-seven patients with postnecrotic cirrhosis of the liver and 13 patients with primary hepatoma were proven to have repeated bleeding from ruptured esophageal varices. Clinically controlled trials were performed by assigning patients to either sclerotherapy or control arms (25 patients each). Combined intra-variceal and para-variceal injection before an upper endoscopic examination was performed in the sclerotherapy group. In all 25 sclerotherapy cases (100%) hemostasis was successful, which was a statistically significant success rate compared to the control group (52.0%) (p less than 0.01). In the sclerotherapy group 20% (5/25 cases) developed rebleeding, which was less than the 48.0% (7 cases of continuous bleeding and 5 cases of rebleeding) of the control group (p less than 0.05). Four cases (16.0%) in the sclerotherapy group died of erosive gastritis with massive bleeding, compared to 8 fatalities (32.0%) in the control group, because of uncontrolled esophageal variceal bleeding. Endoscopic sclerotherapy is a very effective method for arresting bleeding esophageal varices, and for decreasing the rebleeding rate.