Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Risk factors analysis of endoscopy and TIPS in the treatment of secondary esophagogastric varicose bleeding with cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the risk factors of secondary hemorrhage and survival rate in cirrhotic patients with esophagogastric variceal rupture and to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis and TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt).

METHODS: A total of 120 patients with secondary bleeding after endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varicose bleeding with cirrhosis in our hospital during the past 3 years were retrospectively analysed. There were 65 males and 55 females, ranging in age from 49 to 74 years old, with an average of (59.5 ± 8.4) years old. The etiology, degree of varicose veins, bleeding location, hemostasis method, Infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, albumin, platelets, prothrombin activity, Child Pugh (Child-Pugh classification is a diagnostic criterion for liver reserve function) grade were compared in each group. The risk factors of treatment failure and analyse the survival time was analysed.

RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in varicosis degree, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between the failed Endoscopy group and the successful hemostasis group (P< 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between the failed TIPS treatment group and successful hemostasis group (P< 0.05). There was no significant difference in 1-year survival between the endoscopy group and the TIPS group.

CONCLUSION: Severe varicose veins, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, child pugh classification, albumin, and prothrombin activity were the major risk factors for failed secondary endoscopic therapy, child Pugh classification, albumin and prothrombin activity were the main risk factors for failure TIPS treatment. There is no significant difference in long-term survival between the two methods.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app