Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of bleeding from mild to moderate gastric varices type 1

Table 1 Comparison of the baseline data between the two groups of patients

	EBL group (n = 50)	TAI group (n = 50)	χ2/t/U	P value
Sex, n (%)
Male	45 (88.2)	43 (84.3)	/	0.4871
Female	6 (11.8)	8 (15.7)
Age (yr, mean ± SD)	52.78 ± 8.50	52.92 ± 9.65	0.076	0.9392
Causes of disease, n (%)			3.744	0.6301
Hepatitis B liver cirrhosis	28 (54.9)	26 (51.0)
alcoholic cirrhosis	11 (21.6)	13 (25.5)
Hepatitis C cirrhosis	6 (11.7)	2 (3.9)
Autoimmune liver cirrhosis	1 (2.0)	3 (5.9)
Hepatitis B liver cirrhosis with alcoholic cirrhosis	4 (7.8)	6 (11.7)
Other cause	1 (2.0)	1 (2.0)
Child-Pugh classification, n (%)			-0.377	0.7063
A	11 (21.6)	10 (19.6)
B	37 (72.6)	37 (72.6)
C	3 (5.8)	4 (7.8)
Diameter of gastric varices (mm)	15.0	14.0	-1.459	0.1353
Diameter of the portal vein (mm)	8.0	9.0	-1.280	0.2003

¹Fisher’s test.

²t test.

³Mann-Whitney U test.

The values are expressed as the mean ± SD or median. EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 2 Comparison of treatment efficacy between the two groups of patients, n (%)

	Markedly effective	Effective	Ineffective	Total effective rate
EBL group	34 (66.7)	15 (29.4)	2 (3.9)	49 (96.1)
TAI group	20 (39.2)	28 (54.9)	3 (5.9)	48 (94.1)
χ2	-2.669
P value	0.0081			> 0.9992

¹Wilcoxon rank sum test.

²Fisher’s test.

EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 3 Comparison of operative time, operative success rate and 6-wk mortality

	Operative time (min)	Operative success rate, n (%)	Week mortality, n (%)
EBL group	26	51 (100)	0 (0)
TAI group	46	51 (100)	0 (0)
Z	-8.721	/	/
P value	< 0.0011	/	/

¹Mann-Whitney U test.

The operative times are expressed as medians. EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 4 Comparison of the 6-wk operation-related ulcer healing rate, n (%)

	Healed	Non-healed
EBL group	41 (80.4)	10 (19.6)
TAI group	18 (35.3)	33 (64.7)
χ2	21.268
P value	< 0.001

EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 5 Comparison of rebleeding rates, n (%)

	Early rebleeding rate	Delayed rebleeding rate
EBL group	4 (7.8)	6 (11.8)
TAI group	7 (13.7)	23 (45.1)
χ2	0.917	13.924
P value	0.338	< 0.001

EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 6 Comparison of adverse events, n (%)

	Abdominal pain	Infection	Ectopic embolism	Perforation
EBL group	11 (21.6)	2 (3.9)	0 (0)	0 (0)
TAI group	10 (19.6)	3 (5.9)	0 (0)	0 (0)
χ2	0.060	/	/	/
P value	0.8071	> 0.9992	/	/

¹χ² test.

²Fisher’s test.

EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.

Table 7 Comparison of the economic evaluation (median) results

	Average number of hospitalizations (No.)	Average length of hospitalizations (d)	Average total cost of hospitalization (Yuan)	Average number of operations (No.)	Average operation cost (Yuan)
EBL group	2.00	13.00	32128.60	2.00	1680.00
TAI group	3.00	19.00	69380.75	3.00	6548.80
Z	3.596	3.894	6.134	3.631	8.855
P value	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; TAI: Tissue adhesive injection.