| Literature DB >> 23593608 |
Moon Young Kim1, Soon Ho Um, Soon Koo Baik, Yeon Seok Seo, Soo Young Park, Jung Il Lee, Jin Woo Lee, Gab Jin Cheon, Joo Hyun Sohn, Tae Yeob Kim, Young Suk Lim, Tae Hyo Kim, Tae Hee Lee, Sung Jae Park, Seung Ha Park, Jin Dong Kim, Sang Young Han, Chang Soo Choi, Eun Young Cho, Dong Joon Kim, Jae Seok Hwang, Byoung Kuk Jang, June Sung Lee, Sang Gyune Kim, Young Seok Kim, So Young Kwon, Won Hyeok Choe, Chang Hyeong Lee, Byung Seok Kim, Jae Young Jang, Soung Won Jeong, Byung Ho Kim, Jae Jun Shim, Yong Kyun Cho, Moon Soo Koh, Hyun Woong Lee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: While gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) is not as prevalent as esophageal variceal bleeding, it is reportedly more serious, with high failure rates of the initial hemostasis (>30%), and has a worse prognosis than esophageal variceal bleeding. However, there is limited information regarding hemostasis and the prognosis for GVB. The aim of this study was to determine retrospectively the clinical outcomes of GVB in a multicenter study in Korea.Entities:
Keywords: Cirrhosis; Gastric variceal bleeding; Mortality; Rebleeding
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23593608 PMCID: PMC3622854 DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2013.19.1.36
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol ISSN: 2287-2728
General characteristics and clinical outcomes of the cohort (n=1,308).
Data are mean±SD (range) or n (%) values.
EV, esophageal varix; EVH, esophageal variceal bleeding; GOV1, GVs associated with EVs along the lesser curvature; GOV2, GVs associated with EVs along the fundus; GV, gastric varix; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; IGV1, isolated GVs present in isolation in the fundus; IGV2, isolated GVs present in isolation at ectopic sites in the stomach or the first part of the duodenum; INR, international normalized ratio; PHG, portal hypertensive gastropathy.
*Early, defined as within 5 days of the index bleeding; †Late, defined as from the 6th day to 6 weeks after the index bleeding.
Figure 1Type of intravenous vasoactive agents applied to treat the initial acute gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) among the entire cohort.
Figure 2Type of nonpharmacologic treatment modalities that were applied to control the initial acute GVB. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) were the predominantly applied modalities. BRTO, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration; EIS, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; BT, balloon tamponade; No Tx., no treatment.
Factors related to initial hemostasis failure
P-values of univariate analysis were obtained by two sample t-test, ANOVA or chi-square test.
P-values of multivariate analysis were obtained by binary logistic regression analysis.
*Yes vs. No; †GOV1 vs. GOV2+IGV1; ‡F2 and F3 vs. F1; §EVL, EVO, and BRTO vs. the others; ∥Adjusted for age and sex.
EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation; GV, gastric varix; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOV1, GVs associated with EVs along the lesser curvature; GOV2, GVs associated with EVs along the fundus; IGV1, isolated GVs present in isolation in the fundus; EVO, endoscopic variceal cular obturation; BRTO, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration.
Figure 3Comparison of initial hemostasis failure rates according to the initial nonpharmacologic treatment modality applied (EVL, EVO, and BRTO vs. the others). The failure rate was significantly lower for EVL, EVO, and BRTO than for the other modalities, and did not differ among EVL, EVO, and BRTO.
Factors related to rebleeding
P-values of univariate analysis were obtained by two sample t-test, ANOVA or chi-square test.
P-values of multivariate analysis were obtained by binary logistic regression analysis.
*Yes vs. No; †GOV1 vs. GOV2+IGV1 vs. IGV2; ‡F2 and F3 vs. F1; §EVL, EVO and BRTO vs. the others; ∥Adjusted for age and sex.
EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation; GV, gastric varix; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOV1, GVs associated with EVs along the lesser curvature; GOV2, GVs associated with EVs along the fundus; IGV1, isolated GVs present in isolation in the fundus; EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation; BRTO, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration.
Figure 4Comparison of mortality rates according to the initial nonpharmacologic treatment modality applied (EVL, EVO, and BRTO vs. the others). The mortality rate was significantly lower for EVL, EVO, and BRTO than for the other modalities, and did not differ significantly between EVL, EVO, and BRTO.
Factors related to mortality
P-values of univariate analysis were obtained by two sample t-test, ANOVA or chi-square test.
P-values of multivariate analysis were obtained by binary logistic regression analysis.
*Yes vs. No; †GOV1 vs. GOV2+IGV1 vs. IGV2; ‡F2 and F3 vs. F1; §EVL, EVO, and BRTO vs. the others; ∥Adjusted for age and sex.
EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation; GV, gastric varix; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; GOV1, GVs associated with EVs along the lesser curvature; GOV2, GVs associated with EVs along the fundus; IGV1, isolated GVs present in isolation in the fundus; EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation; BRTO, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration.