Efficacy and safety of two endoscopic ultrasound‑guided techniques for paraesophageal variceal puncture and selective tissue adhesive sealing： A comparative study
- VernacularTitle:两种超声内镜引导下食管旁曲张静脉穿刺组织胶选择性封闭术的疗效及安全性比较
- Author:
Mengran ZHANG
1
;
Julong HU
1
;
Yijun LIN
1
;
Yu JIANG
1
;
Yuling ZHOU
1
;
Ping LI
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Endoscopy， Gastrointestinal; Endosonography; Embolization， Therapeutic; Secondary Prevention
- From: Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2026;42(9):2135-2142
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: ObjectiveTo compare the application value of two endoscopic ultrasound （EUS）-guided targeted vascular embolization techniques in secondary prevention of esophagogastric variceal bleeding （EGVB）， and to clarify the clinical advantages of targeted main trunk embolization. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for 59 patients who were admitted to Beijing Ditan Hospital， Capital Medical University， from April 2023 to July 2024 and received secondary prevention of gastroesophageal varices （GOV）-type EGVB， and according to the surgical procedure， they were divided into EUS-PCSS targeting the distal segment of the source vessel or perforating branch vessels （EUS-PCSS-D/P） group with 29 patients and EUS-PCSS targeting the source vascular trunk （EUS-PCSS-T） group with 30 patients. The two groups were observed in terms of rebleeding rate， variceal eradication efficiency， and the incidence rate of adverse events. The t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups， and the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups； the Mann-Whitney U test was used for subgroup analysis， and ordinal Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. ResultsThere were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups （all P>0.05）. Compared with the EUS-PCSS-D/P group， the EUS-PCSS-T group had a significantly smaller diameter of punctured vessels （5.39±2.03 mm vs 7.00±2.21 mm， t=3.012， P=0.005）， a significantly lower treatment rate of supplementary endoscopic injection sclerotherapy （EIS） （40.00% vs 79.31%， χ2=7.521， P=0.006）， and a significantly lower amount of lauromacrogol used （16.08±7.25 mL vs 22.17±6.83 mL， t=2.518， P=0.015）， and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the amount of tissue adhesive used， the number of puncture sites， and treatment costs （all P>0.05）. There were no significant differences between the two groups in rates of GOV-related and all-cause gastrointestinal rebleeding （all P>0.05）. Compared with the EUS-PCSS-D/P group， the EUS-PCSS-T group had a significantly lower number of treatment sessions required for GOV eradication （2.00 ［1.25 — 2.00］ vs 3.00 ［2.00 — 4.00］， Z=3.872， P<0.001）， with a higher two-session eradication rate （50.00% vs 17.86%， χ2=7.102， P=0.008） and a lower eradication rate for three or more sessions （23.33% vs 71.43%， χ2=15.326， P<0.001）. The subgroup analysis showed that history of endoscopic treatment and supplementary EIS did not affect the number of treatment sessions required for GOV regression （all P>0.05）， and the ordinal Logistic regression analysis showed that treatment grouping was an independent influencing factor for the number of treatment sessions required for GOV regression （odds ratio=0.32， 95% confidence interval： 0.15 — 0.68， P=0.007）. There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of adverse events between the two groups （P>0.05）， and no ectopic embolism was observed in the EUS-PCSS-T group. ConclusionThe EUS-PCSS-T procedure can significantly improve the eradication efficiency of GOV and reduce the number of treatment sessions； its efficacy is not affected by history of endoscopic treatment or supplementary EIS therapy， and it has a favorable safety profile.
