The role of collateral veins detected by endosonography in predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment: a systematic review. Hepatol Int. 2014;8:339-351. [PMID: 26202637 DOI: 10.1007/s12072-014-9547-3]

Risk Factors for Esophageal Collateral Veins in Cirrhosis with and without Previous Endoscopic Esophageal Variceal Therapy

BACKGROUND

Portosystemic collateral vessels are a sign of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. Esophageal collateral veins (ECVs) are one major type of portosystemic collateral vessels, which increase the recurrence of esophageal varices and bleeding after variceal eradication. However, the risk factors for ECVs were still unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened cirrhotic patients who had contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images to evaluate ECVs and upper gastrointestinal endoscopic reports to evaluate gastroesophageal varices at our department. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the independent risk factors for ECVs. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy which primarily included endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS).

RESULTS

Overall, 243 patients were included, in whom the prevalence of ECVs was 53.9%. The independent risk factors for ECVs were hepatitis C virus infection (OR = 0.250, p = 0.026), previous EVL (OR = 1.929, p = 0.044), platelet (OR = 0.993, p = 0.008), and esophageal varices needing treatment (EVNTs) (OR = 2.422, p = 0.006). The prevalence of ECVs was 60.8% (73/120) in patients undergoing EVL, 50% (10/20) in those undergoing EIS, and 47.5% (48/101) in those without previous endoscopic variceal therapy. The independent risk factors for ECVs were the use of nonselective beta-blockers (OR = 0.294, p = 0.042) and EVNTs (OR = 3.714, p = 0.006) in subgroup analyses of patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of ECVs should be closely associated with the severity of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. Risk of ECVs might be increased by previous EVL.

Esophageal collateral veins in predicting esophageal variceal recurrence and rebleeding after endoscopic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment is recommended for the management of esophageal varices. However, variceal recurrence or rebleeding is common after endoscopic variceal eradication. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the prevalence of esophageal collateral veins (ECVs) and the association of ECVs with recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We searched the relevant literature through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Prevalence of paraesophageal veins (para-EVs), periesophageal veins (peri-EVs), and perforating veins (PVs) were pooled. Risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively. A random-effects model was employed. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 532 retrieved papers, 28 were included. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs, peri-EVs, and PVs in patients with esophageal varices was 73%, 88%, and 54%, respectively. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs and PVs in patients with recurrence of esophageal varices was 87% and 62%, respectively. The risk for recurrence of esophageal varices was significantly increased in patients with PVs (OR = 9.79, 95% CI: 1.95-49.22, P = 0.006 for eight case-control studies), but not in those with para-EVs (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 0.38-38.35, P = 0.24 for four case-control studies; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: 0.83-3.97, P = 0.14 for three cohort studies). Patients with para-EVs had a significantly higher incidence of rebleeding from esophageal varices (RR = 13.00, 95% CI: 2.43-69.56, P = 0.003 for two cohort studies). Statistically significant heterogeneity was notable across the meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

ECVs are common in patients with esophageal varices. Identification of ECVs could be helpful for predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.

The role of EUS in diagnosis and treatment of liver disorders

Background and aim  Transabdominal ultrasound (US), computed tomographic scanning (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are established diagnostic tools for liver diseases. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography is used to perform hepatic interventional procedures including biopsy, biliary drainage procedures, and radiofrequency ablation. Despite their widespread use, these techniques have limitations. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), a tool that has proven useful for evaluating the mediastinum, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, and biliary tract, has an expanding role in the field of hepatology complementing the traditional investigational modalities. This review aimed to assess the current scientific evidence regarding diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS for hepatic diseases.

Patient Response to Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Varices Based on Endoscopic Ultrasound Findings

Background/Aims

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a common complication of portal hypertension. Endoscopic therapy is currently recommended for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleed. However, the rate of variceal rebleed and its associated mortality remain concerning. This study is aimed at differentiating patient response to endoscopic therapy based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings.

Methods

One-hundred seventy patients previously treated with repeat endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis were enrolled and classified into two groups based on treatment response. Prior to consolidation therapy, all patients received an EUS examination to observe for extraluminal phenomena. All available follow-up endoscopic examination records were retrieved to validate study results.

Results

Of the 170 subjects, 106 were poor responders, while 64 were good responders. The presence of para-gastric, gastric perforating, and esophageal perforating veins was associated with poor patient response (p<0.001). The odds ratio for para-gastric veins was 5.374. Follow-up endoscopic findings for poor responders with incomplete variceal obliteration was closely correlated with the presence of para-gastric veins (p=0.002).

Conclusions

The presence of para-gastric veins is a characteristic of poor response to endoscopic therapy for treating gastroesophageal varices. Early identification of this subgroup necessitates a change in course of treatment to improve overall patient outcome.

Endoscopic ultrasonography - emerging applications in hepatology

The inspection of the liver is a valuable part of the upper endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) studies, regardless of the primary indication for the examination. The detailed images of the liver segments provided by EUS allows the use of this technique in the study of parenchymal liver disease and even in the diagnosis and classification of focal liver lesions. EUS has also emerged as an important tool in understanding the complex collateral circulation in patients with portal hypertension and their clinical and prognostic value. Recently, EUS-guided portal vein catheterization has been performed for direct portal pressure measurement as an alternative method to evaluate portal hemodynamics. In this review, the authors summarize the available evidence regarding the application of EUS to patients with liver diseases and how we can apply it in our current clinical practice.

Randomized controlled trial of scleroligation versus band ligation alone for eradication of gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric varices develop in 5% to 33% of patients with portal hypertension. Their most common form is concomitant gastroesophageal varices. Scleroligation (combined sclerotherapy and band ligation) has been used successfully in management of esophageal varices but has not been evaluated previously in the management of gastroesophageal varices. The aim of this work was evaluation of a new scleroligation technique for management of bleeding gastroesophageal varices regarding efficacy, adverse events, variceal recurrence, and survival.

METHODS

This study was conducted on 120 cirrhotic patients with bleeding gastroesophageal varices, whom we divided randomly into 2 groups of 60 patients each-a band ligation group and a scleroligation group.

RESULTS

The mean number of sessions was lower in the scleroligation group than in the band ligation group (2.22 ± 0.92 and 3.43 ± 0.67, respectively) (P < .001), as were the duration of treatment and total number of bands used. Cost and survival were comparable in the 2 groups. There was no significant difference between the 2 maneuvers regarding adverse events, recurrence rates, or rebleeding rates after obliteration. Recurrence was significantly higher in patients with larger varices, ulceration, and postprocedure pyrexia. Rebleeding was significantly higher among those who experienced postprocedure pyrexia and developed or had worsening of gastric antral vascular ectasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Scleroligation appears to achieve a faster rate of eradication with fewer treatment sessions and total number of bands deployed to achieve variceal obliteration than band ligation and is comparable in cost and in adverse event and recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02646202.).

Endoscopic ultrasonography predicts early esophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A case report

RATIONALE

Bleeding esophageal and gastric varices constitute a serious complication in liver cirrhosis. Previous studies have shown that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can be used to predict early esophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis.

PATIENT CONCERNS

We report a case of a 46-year-old man with hepatitis B liver cirrhosis (CTP score, 5; Child-Pugh class, A) who was admitted to our hospital due to a decreased appetite lasting 1 week.

DIAGNOSIS

He was initially diagnosed with decompensated hepatitis B cirrhosis; an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan indicated a diagnosis of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PHT).

INTERVENTIONS

Common endoscopic examination showed no evidence of gastroesophageal varices; EUS revealed distinct varices of the esophageal and gastric veins. Six months after discharge, the patient was rehospitalized because of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic ligation was implemented as well as esophageal varices loop ligature (EVL).

OUTCOMES

Six months later, EUS showed obvious collateral and perforator veins.

LESSONS

We should strongly recommend that patients with liver cirrhosis undergo EUS in addition to a routine endoscopic examination. EUS can play an important role in evaluating the risk for bleeding in PHT and can be used to assess the efficacy of EVL.

Endoscopic ultrasound findings predict the recurrence of esophageal varices after endoscopic band ligation: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Variceal recurrence following endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is common. Esophageal collateral veins (ECV) are observed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients with portal hypertension. The aim of the present study was to assess the role of EUS in predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices following EBL.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty patients who had undergone EBL for eradication of varices were examined over a 12-month period to detect variceal recurrence. EUS was performed before ligation to detect and describe the type, grade, and the number of ECV. EUS findings obtained prior to EBL were compared in the variceal recurrence and non-recurrence groups.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients, 19 (47.5%) had variceal recurrence within 12 months of EBL. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that severe peri-ECV (p < 0.001), multiple peri-ECV (p < 0.001), and the presence of perforating veins (p < 0.014) were statistically significantly related to the variceal recurrence after EBL. Multivariate logistic regression model found that only severe peri-ECV (odds ratio [OR] = 24.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.34-253.78) and multiple peri-ECV (OR = 24.39; 95% CI: 2.34-253.78) remained as independent prognostic factors for variceal recurrence. The sensitivity and specificity of multivariate logistic regression model in predicting variceal recurrence was 89.2% and 90.5%, respectively (prognostic value (AUC) = 0.946).

CONCLUSION

Recurrence rate of esophageal varices after EBL is high (47.5%). EUS can clearly depict ECV and has a value in predicting variceal recurrence after EBL; severe peri-ECV and multiple peri-ECV were significant and independent prognostic factors associated with variceal recurrence risk.