...
首页> 外文期刊>Transplantation Proceedings >Liver transplantation in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis.
【24h】

Liver transplantation in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis.

机译:肝移植在肝硬化急诊食管静脉曲张破裂出血紧急治疗的随机对照试验中。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: Bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhosis has been considered an indication for liver transplantation (LT). This issue was examined in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of unselected, consecutive patients with advanced cirrhosis and BEV that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST; n = 106) to emergency direct portacaval shunt (EPCS; n = 105). METHODS: Diagnostic work-up and treatment were initiated within 8 hours. Patients were evaluated for LT on admission and repeatedly thereafter; 96% underwent over 10 years of regular follow-up. The analysis was supplemented by 1300 unrandomized cirrhotic patients who previously underwent portacaval shunt (PCS) with 100% follow-up. RESULTS: In the RCT long-term bleeding control was 100% following EPCS, only 20% following EST. Also, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 75%, 73%, 46%, and 46%, respectively, following EPCS compared with 44%, 21%, 9%, and 9% following EST, respectively (P < .001). Only 13 RCT patients (6%) were ultimately referred for LT mainly because of progressive liver failure; only 7 (3%) were approved for LT and only 4 (2%) underwent LT. The 1- and 5-year LT survival rates were 0.68% and 0, respectively, compared with 81% and 73%, respectively, after EPCS. In the 1300 unrandomized PCS patients, 50 (3.8%) were referred and 19 (1.5%) underwent LT. The 5-year survival rate was 53% compared with 72% for all 1300 patients. CONCLUSIONS: If bleeding is permanently controlled, as occurred invariably following EPCS, cirrhotic patients with BEV seldom require LT. PCS is effective first-line and long-term treatment. Should LT be required in patients with PCS, although technically more demanding, numerous studies have shown that PCS does not increase mortality or complications. EST is not effective emergency or long-term therapy.
机译:背景:肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血(BEV)被认为是肝移植(LT)的适应症。在未选择的连续性晚期肝硬化和BEV患者的随机对照试验(RCT)中检查了此问题,该试验比较了内窥镜硬化疗法(EST; n = 106)和紧急直接门腔分流(EPCS; n = 105)。方法:在8小时内开始诊断检查和治疗。入院时对患者进行LT评估,此后重复进行; 96%的患者接受了10年的定期随访。 1300例先前接受门腔分流术(PCS)并进行100%随访的非随机性肝硬化患者对此分析进行了补充。结果:在RCT中,EPCS后的长期出血控制为100%,EST后仅为20%。此外,EPCS后的3年,5年,10年和15年生存率分别为75%,73%,46%和46%,而术后4年,44%,21%,9%和9% EST(P <.001)。最终只有13名RCT患者(占6%)被推荐接受LT,主要是由于进行性肝衰竭。只有7个(3%)被批准进行LT,只有4个(2%)进行了LT。 EPCS后1年和5年LT生存率分别为0.68%和0,而EPCS后分别为81%和73%。在1300名非随机PCS患者中,有50名(3.8%)被转诊,而19名(1.5%)接受了LT。 5年生存率是53%,而所有1300例患者的72%。结论:如果永久控制出血,如在EPCS后无休止发生,则BEV肝硬化患者很少需要LT。 PCS是有效的一线和长期治疗。 PCS患者是否应要求LT,尽管在技术上要求更高,但许多研究表明PCS不会增加死亡率或并发症。 EST不是有效的紧急或长期治疗方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号