EVL (Endoscopic Variceal Ligation) Plus Vasoconstrictor vs.Ligation Plus PPI( Proton Pump Inhibitor) in the Control of Acute Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

NCT ID: NCT01112852

Last Updated: 2010-04-28

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

118 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2006-12-31

Study Completion Date

2010-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Previous studies showed that combination of endoscopic therapy with vasoconstrictor is better than either vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone in achieving the successful hemostatsis of acute variceal bleeding. The rationale of using vasoconstrictor is to enhance the efficacy of hemostasis by endoscopic therapy. Nowadays, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has replaced endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) as the endoscopic treatment of choice in the arresting of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. EVL alone can achieve hemotasis up to 97% even in cases of active variceal hemorrhage. However, early rebleeding due to ligation-induced ulcer may be encountered. It appears that prevention of esophageal ulcers and bleeding by a proton pump inhibitor may be more logical than using a vasoconstrictor after cessation of bleeding by EVL.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Previous studies showed that combination of endoscopic therapy with vasoconstrictor is better than either vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone in achieving the successful hemostatsis of acute variceal bleeding. The rationale of using vasoconstrictor is to enhance the efficacy of hemostasis by endoscopic therapy. Nowadays, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has replaced endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) as the endoscopic treatment of choice in the arresting of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. EVL alone can achieve hemotasis up to 97% even in cases of active variceal hemorrhage. However, early rebleeding due to ligation-induced ulcer may be encountered. It appears that prevention of esophageal ulcers and bleeding by a proton pump inhibitor may be more logical than using a vasoconstrictor after cessation of bleeding by EVL.

Thus, we designed a controlled trial to compare the initial hemostasis, early rebleeding rate in cirrhotic patients presenting with acute variceal bleeding receiving either emergency EVL plus somatostatin infusion or losec infusion for 5 days.

AIMS:

To investigate whether the combination of EVL and somatostatin is superior to the combination of EVL and losec in terms of efficacy in the arresting of acute esophageal variceal bleeding and very early rebleeding.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Esophageal Varices Bleeding

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

control of bleed

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

EVL + vasoconstrictor

Somatostatin 6mg in 500 cc 5% dextrose, 250μg slow bolus IV infusion followed by 250μg per hour (6mg/ 24 hours) or Terlipressin 2mg bolus was instituted on enrollment followed by 1mg per 6 hours for 5 days. The use of either somatostatin or glypressin was at the discretion of doctors in charge.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

somatostatin or terlipressin

Intervention Type DRUG

Somatostatin 6mg in 500 cc 5% dextrose, 250μg slow bolus IV infusion followed by 250μg per hour (6mg/ 24 hours) or Terlipressin 2mg bolus was instituted on enrollment followed by 1mg per 6 hours for 5 days. The use of either somatostatin or glypressin was at the discretion of doctors in charge.

EVL + PPI

Pantoloc 40 mg intravenously per day was instituted on enrollment and continued for 5

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

pantoloc 40 mg

Intervention Type DRUG

pantoloc iv. infusion per day

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

pantoloc 40 mg

pantoloc iv. infusion per day

Intervention Type DRUG

somatostatin or terlipressin

Somatostatin 6mg in 500 cc 5% dextrose, 250μg slow bolus IV infusion followed by 250μg per hour (6mg/ 24 hours) or Terlipressin 2mg bolus was instituted on enrollment followed by 1mg per 6 hours for 5 days. The use of either somatostatin or glypressin was at the discretion of doctors in charge.

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

pantoloc, a proton pump inhibitor somatostatin and terlipressin are vasoconstrictors.

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* The etiology of portal hypertension is cirrhosis.
* Age ranges between 18-80 y/o.
* Patients presenting with acute esophageal variceal bleeding proven by emergency endoscopy within 12 hours. (Acute esophageal variceal bleeding was defined as: (1) when blood was directly seen by endoscopy to issue from an esophageal varix (active bleeding), or (2) when patients presented with red color signs on their esophageal varices with blood in esophagus or stomach and no other potential site of bleeding identified (inactive bleeding).
* EVL is performed after confirmation of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. Enrollment time: Immediately after EVL is completed and variceal bleeding is arrested.

Exclusion Criteria

* Association with severe systemic illness, such as sepsis, COPD, uremia
* Association with gastric variceal bleeding
* Failure in the control of bleeding by emergency EVL
* Moribund patients, died within 12 hours of enrollment
* Uncooperative
* Ever received EIS, EVL within one month prior to index bleeding
* Child-Pugh's scores \> 13
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan

OTHER_GOV

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

National Science Council

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Gin-Ho Lo

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

E-DA Hospital

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Lo GH, Perng DS, Chang CY, Tai CM, Wang HM, Lin HC. Controlled trial of ligation plus vasoconstrictor versus proton pump inhibitor in the control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Apr;28(4):684-9. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12107.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 23278466 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

PPI for EVB

Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT

Identifier Source: secondary_id

EVL + PPI

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id