Comparison of modified percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization and endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for gastric variceal rebleeding

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of patients

	EVO (n = 45)	PTVE (n = 32)	P value
Sex (M/F)	33/12	22/10	0.661
Age (mean ± SD, yr)	52.69 ± 8.99	50.65 ± 7.23	0.293
Etiology of cirrhosis			0.999
Hepatitis B	25	18
Hepatitis C	9	6
Alcohol	8	6
Others	3	2
Child-Pugh class (A/B/C)	14/21/10	9/17/6	0.851
Bleeding onset			1.000
Recent variceal bleeding	40	28
Acute variceal bleeding	5	4
Blood transfusion (unit)	4.50±3.32	5.33±3.60	0.542
Form of GV (F1/F2/F3)1	12/23/10	7/13/12	0.343
Location of GV2			0.467
GOV2	29	18
IGV1	16	14
Ascites	26	20	0.857
Duration of follow-up (mo)	19.78 ± 7.70	21.53 ± 8.56	0.350

¹Forms of gastric varices (GV) were graded by the classification described by Hashizume et al[24]: F1, tortuous winding varices; F2, nodular-shaped varices; and F3, tumorous huge varices;

²Locations of GV were based on the criteria proposed by Sarin et al[1]. M/F: Male/female; GOV2: Gastric varices extended from the esophageal varices toward the gastric fundus; IGV1: Isolated gastric varices located in the fundus; PTVE: Percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; EVO: Endoscopic variceal obturation.