Gastric Variceal Ligation Versus Gastric Variceal Obturation for Secondary Prophylaxis of Gastric Varices

Liver Cirrhosis Clinical Trial

Official title:

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Gastric Variceal Ligation Versus Gastric Variceal Obturation for Secondary Prophylaxis of Gastric Varices

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03729921
• Other study ID #: CSY-GVL&GVO
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: November 2018
• Est. completion date: June 2020

Study information

• Verified date: November 2018
• Source: Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The investigators establish a randomized controlled clinical trial, comparing the efficacy and prognosis of GVL and GVO in secondary prevention of GVs, especially in patients with portosystemic shunting, and exploring the endoscopic treatment selection of different types of GVs.

Outcome expectations: Compared with glue injection, endoscopic ligation for secondary prevention of gastric varices is safe and effective, especially in patients with portosystemic shunting.

Description:

Gastric varices (GVs) is a common complication of portal hypertension, with an incidence of 20%. Though the bleeding rate of GVs (25%) is lower than that of Esophageal varices (EVs), the mortality rate is higher due to greater GVs rupture and less space for endoscopic intervention. In addition, in 30% of patients with GVs, the possibility of treatment failure exists.

Guidelines differ on endoscopic treatment for secondary prevention of GVs.Current studies suggest that EVL, due to its low incidence of complications, is suitable for GOV1, while it is still controversial for the treatment of gastric varices. Compared with glue, the advantage of ligation is that it can avoid serious complications caused by glue injection, such as ectopic embolization, large ulcer and sepsis. As there are few studies comparing GVL and GVO in secondary prevention of gastric varices, the treatment methods are different, and the treatment effect is controversial. In addition, the choice of treatment for different types of GVs needs further study.

The investigators establish a randomized controlled clinical trial, comparing the efficacy and prognosis of GVL and GVO in secondary prevention of GVs, especially in patients with portosystemic shunting, and exploring the endoscopic treatment selection of different types of GVs.

Outcome expectations: Compared with glue injection, endoscopic ligation for secondary prevention of gastric varices is safe and effective, especially in patients with portosystemic shunting.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 166
• Est. completion date: June 2020
• Est. primary completion date: November 2019
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients over 18 years of age;Past history of gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage confirmed by an endoscopic examination

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients who are not suitable for endoscopic treatment judged by the clinician; Patients who are not suitable for the ligation treatment because of scar change by repeated glue injection; Patients with acute hemorrhage

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Esophageal and Gastric Varices
• Gastroesophageal Varices
• Liver Cirrhosis
• Varicose Veins

Intervention

Procedure:
• gastric variceal ligation
The highest point of the variceal vein was used as the primary ligation site. If the input vein was not obvious, the edge of the variceal vein was ligated. The variceal veins were ligated with a 6-ring ligation device, and more than 18 rings rubber bands could be applied in one session. GVL was performed regularly until varices were obliterated or reduced to residual small varices, which could not be ligated. The residual small varices was treated by cyanoacrylate injection.
• gastric variceal obturation
Gastric varices were uniformly treated via the sandwich technique, which starts with an injection of lauromacrogol, followed by N-butyl cyanoacrylate, then finished with flush of lauromacrogol. The number of injection sites and volume of lauromacrogol and cyanoacrylate used, directly correlated with the size of the varix. Multiple injection sites were chosen in attempt to obliterate the varix or varices in one session. Volume of lauromacrogol used ranged from 2-10ml, while that of cyanoacrylate ranged from 0.5-2ml, per injection site.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Rate of rebleeding	New onset of hematemesis, coffee-ground vomitus, hematochezia,or melena,with an increasing pulse rate over 100 beats/min and decreasing blood pressure below 90 mmHg after a 24-hour period of stable vital signs and hemoglobin after endoscopic treatment.	6 months
Secondary	Rate of GV eradication	non-visualization of patent GV	6 months
Secondary	Incidence of complications	Huge ulcer on GV, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, bacteremia	6 months
Secondary	mortality	Survival situation of patience	6 months