Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic ultrasound versus conventional endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EUS-guidedEndoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsCirrhosis with unexplained upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CUUGB) remains a persistent diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in the management of patients with cirrhosis. It is worth investigating whether EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection (EUS-CYA) provides greater efficacy in the diagnosis and treatment of CUUGB compared to cyanoacrylate injection under direct endoscopy (DEI-CYA).
methodsThis study enrolled 116 patients with CUUGB and employed a single-blind, prospective, parallel-group randomized design to assign participants into two arms: the DEI-CYA group (n = 58) and the EUS-CYA group (n = 58). Both groups of patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In cases of rebleeding during this period, endoscopy was promptly repeated. The primary outcome was the comparison of rebleeding rates between the two groups of patients with CUUGB. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, rate of vascular obliteration, Occurrence of complications during follow-up, and liver function status.
resultsAmong the 116 enrolled patients, direct endoscopy revealed 47 cases (40.51%) with gastric fundal red-color signs (RCS) and 27 cases (23.30%) with punctate erosions. Post-treatment, the EUS-CYA group demonstrated a significantly higher GV obliteration rate (82.76% vs. 65.52%, p = 0.035) and a lower long-term rebleeding rate (22.41% vs. 60.34%, p < 0.01) compared to the DEI-CYA group. The cumulative incidence of rebleeding was lower in the EUS-CYA group (p = 0.003). Liver function improved following EUS-CYA, with significant increases in albumin (p = 0.038) and prothrombin time (PT, p = 0.009), whereas DEI-CYA improved only PT (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis identified diabetes mellitus as an independent predictor of rebleeding (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.65; p = 0.008). Notably, DEI-CYA was associated with significantly higher odds of rebleeding compared to EUS-CYA (OR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.10-0.56; p = 0.001).
conclusionsCompared with DEI-CYA, EUS-CYA demonstrates a significantly higher detection rate of bleeding etiology, superior vascular obliteration rates, and a lower incidence of rebleeding in patients with CUUGB. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) website ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), Number ChiCTR2200058888.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41198927What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.