Endoscopic Nd:YAG laser therapy for active esophageal variceal bleeding: A randomized controlled study

doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(85)71954-2

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volume 31, Issue 1, February 1985, Pages 4-9

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(85)71954-2 Get rights and content

A randomized controlled double-blind study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser therapy for active esophageal variceal bleeding. Ten patients were randomized to the laser treatment group and 10 to a control group that received sham endoscopy and standard medical therapy. Initial hemostasis was achieved in seven laser-treated patients but in 0 of 10 controls receiving sham treatment (p < 0.002). However, four of the seven who were initially controlled with laser therapy had rebleeding 12 to 48 hours later; thus, three of 10 laser patients had lasting hemostasis. The mean blood transfusion requirements were similar in both groups (laser = 7.3 units; control = 7.8 units). Six of the 10 laser-treated patients were discharged from the hospital and four died. There were seven hospital deaths in the control group and three patients were discharged (p = 0.22). In two patients in the treatment group, laser therapy increased bleeding. There were no perforations.

References (7)

D.E. Fleischer et al.
Therapeutic endoacopy for control of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Gastrointest Endosc
(1983)
D.M. Jensen et al.
Comparison of methods for endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding canine esophageal varices
Gastroenterology
(1983)
D.M. Jensen et al.
A reproducible canine model of esophageal varices
Gastroenterology
(1983)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (30)

Blinding
2023, Handbook for Designing and Conducting Clinical and Translational Surgery
Blinding is an essential strategy for mitigating bias in trials with two or more treatment arms. This practice remains notably underutilized in surgical trials, due in part to the challenges of creating blinded interventional studies. However, blinding has become increasingly prevalent in surgical trials through the development of a variety of innovative methods tailored to the five key categories of study participants: patients, interventionists, data collectors, outcome assessors, and data analysts. This chapter provides blinding strategies for each of these categories, as well as discussion of blinding classification, benefits, barriers, ethical considerations, and documentation.
Randomized sham-controlled trials in endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events
2017, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Sham procedures in endoscopy are used with the intention of controlling for placebo response, potentially allowing more precise evaluation of treatment effect. Nevertheless, this type of study may impose significant risk without potential benefit for those in the sham group. The aim of the current study was to systematically review and analyze the endoscopic literature to assess the safety of sham controls.
MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for endoscopic sham procedures for all dates to July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing an endoscopic therapy with a sham were included. Primary outcome was adverse events (AEs) categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Results were combined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed with the Egger test and funnel plots.
Data were extracted from 34 publications (1987-2017; 100% full text), with a total of 2492 procedures (1355 treatment/1137 sham). Sham procedures involved upper endoscopy (31 studies) and ERCP (3 studies). Treatment arms included procedures with the following indications: weight loss (38.2%), GI bleeding (26.5%), GERD (20.6%), sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (8.8%), and dysphagia (6.2%). Overall percentage of severe adverse events (SAEs) in the sham group was 1.7% (19/1137). Of these, the most common SAEs in the sham groups were need for surgery/intensive care unit stay (35.3%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (23.5%), and perforation (11.8%). There was no significant difference in the odds of developing an SAE between the treatment group and the sham group (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-2.3). The pooled additional risk incurred from being initially randomized to the sham arm and then receiving a cross-over intervention was significant (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14-1.56; P < .001), compared with patients initially randomized to the study intervention.
The frequency of AEs in endoscopic sham procedures is substantial, and patients are subjected to considerable morbidity. These results raise a serious ethical dilemma regarding the use of sham-controlled trials.
Critical review of sham surgery clinical trials: Confounding factors analysis
2016, Annals of Medicine and Surgery
Citation Excerpt :
One study of 53 was excluded by the analysis because lack of informed consent and inside the medical record the type of intervention was not truly. Finally, 52 randomized clinical trial were eligible for the critical review [10,24–73]. The possible confounding factors have been studied using a structured interpretative research form designed by the authors including the following ten confounding factors: I), lack of homogeneity among inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Sham surgery (placebo surgery) is an intervention that omits the step thought to be therapeutically necessary. In surgical clinical trials, sham surgery serves an analogous purpose to placebo drugs, neutralizing biases such as the placebo effect. A critical review was performed to study the statistical relevance of the clinical trials about sham surgery in the light of potential confounding factors.
For the critical review 52 articles were included. The possible confounding factors have been studied using a structured interpretative research form designed by the authors. This form includes the following ten confounding factors: I), lack of homogeneity among inclusion/exclusion criteria. II), false double blind. III), lack of post-surgery double blind. IV), power of the study. V), sample characteristics. VI), lost patients to Follow-up. VII), gender distribution. VIII), age equilibrium. IX), lack of psychological patient evaluation. X), lack of psychiatric patient evaluation. In most of the studies, at least one confounding factor was present.
The analysis of the confounding factors showed that they could influence the reliability of the surgical placebo effects.
The validity of sham surgery should be reconsidered.
Endoscopic management of the acute variceal bleeding event
1999, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America
An examination of the published literature with regard to background and endoscopic management. Methods that are reviewed include laser, polymer injection, sclerotherapy, ligation and novel new methods. Sclerotherapy is compared to other non-endoscopic management. Ligation and sclerotherapy are compared for effectiveness and complications. Information on endoscopic therapy of gastric varices is also reviewed.
Laser therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding
1997, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America
Laser treatment of esophageal and gastric lesions
1992, Surgical Clinics of North America
The introduction of endoscopic lasers galvanized an awakening interest in the therapeutic uses of the endoscope. Lasers subsequently proved their usefulness in controlling hemorrhage and in relieving malignant obstructions but competition from other modalities has been vigorous. Comparative studies have demonstrated that current endoscopic lasers are most suitable for use in specialized centers and are best applied for specific indications, such as tumor ablation and the hemostasis of bleeding vascular malformations.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Endoscopic Nd:YAG laser therapy for active esophageal variceal bleeding: A randomized controlled study

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology