BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Letter to the Editor
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 14, 2025; 31(46): 114149
Published online Dec 14, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i46.114149
Table 1 Summary of studies on the outcome of clip-assisted glue injection for gastric varices
Ref.
Design/sample size
Baseline characteristics
Key results
Comparison with con-ECI
Li et al[2]Multicenter retrospective (n = 96). Clip-ECI: 46; Con-ECI: 50IGV1 only: GRS: 59/66 (89.4%); Child-Pugh A/B; No prior variceal therapyHemostasis: 100% both groups; Rebleeding: 4.3% (clip) vs 18% (con) (P = 0.007); Obliteration: 100% (clip) vs 72% (con) (P < 0.001); Embolism: 1 cerebral (con-ECI)Clip-ECI superior in rebleeding prevention and obliteration; similar safety overall
Zhang et al[3]Multicenter observational (n = 61) Clip-ECI onlyGOV2/IGV1 with CT-confirmed GRS; Mostly cirrhotics; some with large varices; Child-Pugh A/B/CTechnical success: 100%; Rebleeding: 22.8% overall; Embolism: None; Minor side effects only-
Yu et al[4]Single-center case series (n = 9) Clip-ECI onlyGOV1/GOV2: 4/9 had spontaneous shunts; Child-Pugh A/B/C; Acute bleeding casesHemostasis: 100%; Rebleeding: 2/9 (22%); Embolism: None; Cyanoacrylate extrusion: 2 cases-
Zhang et al[5]Multicenter retrospective (n = 274). Clip-ECI: 148; Con-ECI: 126GOV2/IGV1 with GRS; comparable age, sex, MELD, Child-PughRebleeding-free at 6 months: 88.6% (clip) vs 73.7% (con) (P = 0.002); Survival: NS; Fewer sessions in Clip-ECI (P = 0.015)Clip-ECI offers better long-term control with fewer sessions
Wang et al[6]Randomized controlled trial (n = 70). Clip-ECI: 35; Con-ECI: 35GOV2/IGV1 with GRS (confirmed CT/MRI); Comparable age, sex, MELD, Child-PughEmbolism: 11.4% (clip) vs 42.9% (con) (P = 0.003); Symptomatic PE: 4 (con) vs 0 (clip); Rebleeding: 14.3% both
Mortality: 1 death (con)
Clip-ECI is significantly safer for embolism; equally effective for bleeding