Background Octride was the main method for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding （EVB）. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effect and safety between esophageal variceal ligation （EVL） plus octri...Background Octride was the main method for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding （EVB）. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effect and safety between esophageal variceal ligation （EVL） plus octride and octride alone in acute esophageal bleeding. Methods A total of 101 cirrhotic patients with EVB were involved in this study and received emergency EVL ± octride （EVL group） or only octride therapy randomly. The cost, efficacy and safety were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results Among 51 patients in EVL group, 5 （10%） patients failed. Among 50 patients in the octride treatment group, 13 patients （26%） failed. The difference was significant （P 〈0.05）. The average blood transfusion volume was （2.4±2.2） units in the EVL group and （6.4±3.4） units in the octride treatment group （P〈0.05）. Hospital stay was （7.4±1.3） days in the EVL group and （11.4±3.3） days in the octride treatment group （P 〈0.05）. The average hospital cost was （10 983±1147） yuan in the EVL group and （13 921 ±2107） yuan in the octride treatment group （P 〈0.05）. Conclusion Emergency endoscopic ligation plus octride is superior to octride alone in the treatment of acute EVB with lower cost and higher efficacy with enough safety.展开更多
文摘Background Octride was the main method for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding （EVB）. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effect and safety between esophageal variceal ligation （EVL） plus octride and octride alone in acute esophageal bleeding. Methods A total of 101 cirrhotic patients with EVB were involved in this study and received emergency EVL ± octride （EVL group） or only octride therapy randomly. The cost, efficacy and safety were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results Among 51 patients in EVL group, 5 （10%） patients failed. Among 50 patients in the octride treatment group, 13 patients （26%） failed. The difference was significant （P 〈0.05）. The average blood transfusion volume was （2.4±2.2） units in the EVL group and （6.4±3.4） units in the octride treatment group （P〈0.05）. Hospital stay was （7.4±1.3） days in the EVL group and （11.4±3.3） days in the octride treatment group （P 〈0.05）. The average hospital cost was （10 983±1147） yuan in the EVL group and （13 921 ±2107） yuan in the octride treatment group （P 〈0.05）. Conclusion Emergency endoscopic ligation plus octride is superior to octride alone in the treatment of acute EVB with lower cost and higher efficacy with enough safety.
