A randomized trial of endoscopic treatment of XXXX : @entity7548 injection versus band ligation.

@entity1 @entity82 @entity548 @entity7548 @entity157 @entity360
Progression of @entity360 ( @entity360 ) is poorer than esophageal variceal @entity548 . However, data on its optimal treatment are limited. We designed a prospective study to compare the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (GVL) and endoscopic @entity7548 injection (GVO). Liver @entity1 with @entity82 with or without concomitant @entity157 ( @entity157 ) and @entity1 presenting with acute @entity360 were randomized into two treatment groups. Forty-eight @entity1 received GVL, and another 49 @entity1 received GVO. Both treatments were equally successful in controlling active @entity548 (14/15 vs. 14/15, P = 1.000). More of the @entity1 who underwent GVL had GV rebleeding (GVL vs. GVO, 21/48 vs. 11/49; P = .044). The 2-year and 3-year cumulative rate of GV rebleeding were 63.1% and 72.3% for GVL, and 26.8% for both periods with GVO; P = .0143, log-rank test. The rebleeding risk of GVL was sustained throughout the entire follow-up period. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that concomitance with @entity157 (relative hazard: 2.453, 95% CI: 1.036-5.806, P = .041) and the treatment method (GVL vs. GVO, relative hazard: 2.660, 95% CI: 1.167-6.061, P = .020) were independent factors predictive of GV rebleeding. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. Severe complications attributable to these two treatments were rare. In conclusion, the efficacy of GVL to control active @entity360 appears not different to GVO, but GVO is associated with a lower GV rebleeding rate.
