. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Jun 5;25(3):491–507. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2015.03.004

Table 2.

Randomized controlled studies comparing endoscopic variceal band ligation with endoscopic variceal obturation

Study	Description	N (active bleeding)	GOV1/GOV2/IGV	Primary hemostasis OR (95% CI)	Rebleeding rate HR (95% CI)	1yr Mortality	Comment
Lo et al, 2001⁴²	RCT Taiwan Single center EVBL vs. EVO	29 vs. 31 (11 vs. 15 with active bleeding)	13/33/14	45% vs. 87% 7.8 (1.16,52.35)	48% vs. 29% 0.44 (0.19, 1.00)	62% vs. 42%	EVO more effective and safer than EVBL in gastric variceal bleeding
Tan et al, 2006⁴³	RCT Taiwan Single center EVBL vs. EVO	48 vs. 49 (15 vs. 15 with active bleeding)	25/51/21	93% vs. 93% 1.00 (0.06, 17.62)	42% vs.22% 0.41 (0.20, 0.82)	44% vs. 42%	No difference between EVO and EVBL in efficacy, survival or severe complications. EVO associated with less rebreeding.
El Amin et al, 2010⁴⁴	RCT Egypt Multicenter EVBL vs. EVO	75 vs. 75 (All GOV1)	150/0/0	81% vs. 91% 2.23 (0.84, 5.89)	16% vs. 6%	1.3% vs.7% mortality at 6 month, most died from HRS	All pts with GOV1, EVBL performed better in junctional varices. EVO can be an alternate therapy

EVBL, endoscopic variceal band ligation, EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation, GOV1, gastroesophageal varices type 1, GOV2, gastroesophageal varices type 2, IGV1, isolated gastric varices type 1, RCT, randomized controlled trial, NS, nonsignificant, PVT, portal vein thrombosis, HRS, hepatorenal syndrome, OR, odds ratio, HR, hazard ration, CI, confidence interval