Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparison of balloon-occluded esophageal varices obliteration and endoscopic variceal ligation for high-risk esophageal varices of various diameters: a prospective 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is associated with relatively high rebleeding rates in patients with large esophageal varices (EVs). However, objective and clinically applicable methods for measuring esophageal variceal diameter (EVD) remain limited. This study aimed to introduce a novel non-invasive EVD measurement technique and to compare the efficacy of balloon-occluded esophageal varices obliteration (BEVO) with EVL in patients with high-risk EVs (HREVs), focusing on rebleeding and survival outcomes across different EVD subgroups.
methodsEVD was measured endoscopically using an artificial intelligence-assisted virtual ruler. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients with HREVs of varying diameters treated between December 2020 and January 2024 were randomly assigned to receive BEVO (n = 107) or EVL (n = 107). Primary and secondary outcomes included rebleeding rates, number of treatment sessions, adverse events, and overall survival.
resultsCompared with EVL, BEVO was associated with significantly lower total rebleeding rates (13.08% vs. 27.10%, P = 0.010) and late rebleeding rates (11.21% vs. 23.36%, P = 0.019). Among patients with EVD ≥ 10 mm, EVL was associated with significantly higher rebleeding rates (9.09% vs. 25.35%, P = 0.03), with this difference becoming more pronounced in those with EVD ≥ 15 mm (17.65% vs. 100.00%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified EVL, compared to BEVO, as an independent predictor of rebleeding (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.17-4.18, P = 0.015). Patients treated with EVL required more treatment sessions than those treated with BEVO (P = 0.028). Furthermore, patients without rebleeding demonstrated significantly higher survival rates than those with rebleeding (94.15% vs. 69.76%, P < 0.001).
conclusionIn this study population, BEVO demonstrated superior efficacy to EVL in preventing rebleeding in HREVs, particularly those with EVD ≥ 10 mm. These findings suggest BEVO as a promising therapeutic strategy, warranting further validation in multicenter studies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ChiCTR2000039974.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41627454What 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.