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

November 1, 2018 updated by: Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital

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

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.

Study Overview

Detailed 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.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

166

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

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

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: PREVENTION
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: 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.
EXPERIMENTAL: 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.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Rate of rebleeding
Time Frame: 6 months
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 Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Rate of GV eradication
Time Frame: 6 months
non-visualization of patent GV
6 months
Incidence of complications
Time Frame: 6 months
Huge ulcer on GV, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, bacteremia
6 months
mortality
Time Frame: 6 months
Survival situation of patience
6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ANTICIPATED)

November 1, 2018

Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED)

November 1, 2019

Study Completion (ANTICIPATED)

June 1, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 31, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 1, 2018

First Posted (ACTUAL)

November 5, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

November 5, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 1, 2018

Last Verified

November 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Liver Cirrhosis

Clinical Trials on gastric variceal obturation

3
Subscribe