首页> 外文OA文献 >Prevention of Rebleeding From Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis Receiving Small-Diameter Stents Versus Hemodynamically Controlled Medical Therapy
【2h】

Prevention of Rebleeding From Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis Receiving Small-Diameter Stents Versus Hemodynamically Controlled Medical Therapy

机译:肝硬化小直径支架对血流动力学控制的药物治疗对食管静脉曲张再出血的预防

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BACKGROUND & AIMSududPatients with cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage have a high risk of rebleeding. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the prevention of rebleeding in patients given a small-diameter covered stent vs those given hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)-based medical therapy prophylaxis.ududMETHODSududWe performed an open-label study of patients with cirrhosis (92% Child class A or B, 70% alcoholic) treated at 10 medical centers in Germany. Patients were assigned randomly more than 5 days after variceal hemorrhage to groups given a small covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) (8 mm; n = 90), or medical reduction of portal pressure (propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate; n = 95). HVPG was determined at the time patients were assigned to groups (baseline) and 2 weeks later. In the medical group, patients with an adequate reduction in HVPG (responders) remained on the drugs whereas nonresponders underwent only variceal band ligation. The study was closed 10 months after the last patient was assigned to a group. The primary end point was variceal rebleeding. Survival, safety (adverse events), and quality of life (based on the Short Form-36 health survey) were secondary outcome measures.ududRESULTSududA significantly smaller proportion of patients in the TIPS group had rebleeding within 2 years (7%) than in the medical group (26%) (P = .002). A slightly higher proportion of patients in the TIPS group experienced adverse events, including encephalopathy (18% vs 8% for medical treatment; P = .05). Rebleeding occurred in 6 of 23 patients (26%) receiving medical treatment before hemodynamic control was possible. Per-protocol analysis showed that rebleeding occurred in a smaller proportion of the 32 responders (18%) than in nonresponders who received variceal band ligation (31%) (P = .06). Fifteen patients from the medical group (16%) underwent TIPS placement during follow-up evaluation, mainly for refractory ascites. Survival time and quality of life did not differ between both randomized groups.ududCONCLUSIONSududPlacement of a small-diameter, covered TIPS was straightforward and prevented variceal rebleeding in patients with Child A or B cirrhosis more effectively than drugs, which often required step-by-step therapy. However, TIPS did not increase survival time or quality of life and produced slightly more adverse events. Clinical Trial no: ISRCTN 16334693.
机译:背景与目的肝硬化/静脉曲张出血的患者有再出血的高风险。我们进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,比较了小直径覆膜支架与预防性肝静脉压梯度(HVPG)药物治疗对再出血的预防作用。 ud udMETHODS ud ud我们进行了开放标签德国10个医疗中心治疗的肝硬化患者(92%的A级或B级儿童,70%的酒精中毒)的临床研究。静脉曲张破裂出血后超过5天,将患者随机分为两组,每组一组,行小型经盖颈静脉内肝内门体分流术(TIPS)(8 mm; n = 90),或医学上降低门静脉压力(普萘洛尔和异山梨醇5-一硝酸盐)。 n = 95)。在患者入组时(基线)和2周后确定HVPG。在医疗组中,HVPG充分降低的患者(应答者)仍然使用药物,而无应答者仅进行静脉曲张带结扎。在最后一名患者被分组后的10个月,研究结束。主要终点是静脉曲张再出血。生存率,安全性(不良事件)和生活质量(基于Short-36健康调查)是次要的结局指标。 ud udRESULTS ud udTIPS组患者在2年内再次出血的比例显着降低(7%)比医疗组(26%)(P = .002)。 TIPS组中有较高比例的患者经历了包括脑病在内的不良事件(药物治疗的比例为18%比8%; P = 0.05)。在可能进行血流动力学控制之前,接受药物治疗的23位患者中有6位(26%)发生再出血。按方案分析显示,与接受静脉曲张绑扎术的无反应者(31%)相比,在32例反应者(18%)中发生再出血的比例更小(P = .06)。在随访评估中,有15名医疗组患者(占16%)接受了TIPS放置,主要用于难治性腹水。两组患者的生存时间和生活质量无差异。 ud ud结论 ud ud放置小直径,有盖的TIPS较简单,比药物治疗更有效地预防了Child A或B肝硬化患者的静脉曲张再出血。通常需要逐步治疗。但是,TIPS并没有增加生存时间或生活质量,并且产生了更多的不良事件。临床试验号:ISRCTN 16334693。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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