Endoscopic banding devices

A targeted endoscopic band ligation technique for management of acute esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) standard therapy is traditionally performed with banding from the distal esophagus upwards. However, esophageal varices (EV) with stigma of recent bleeding are not consistently banded at the first attempt. We aimed to compare conventional banding in acute variceal bleeding (AVB) vs targeted banding of EV in patients with stigma of recent bleeding (white nipple sign).

METHODS

This case-control study included patients treated in our hospital from December 2016 to September 2019 with endoscopic signs of recent variceal bleeding. The targeted technique involves deploying the first band at the recent bleeding stigmata and then completing the procedure with standard variceal banding technique. The conventional group included patients treated with standard EBL.

RESULTS

We analyzed 92 patients, 54 (58.7%) in conventional technique and 38 (41.3%) in the targeted group. Active bleeding during endoscopy occurred in 11 (20.0%) of conventional and two (6.5%) of the targeted group (p=0.021). Although procedure time was longer in the conventional group (24.3min SD 11.58) compared to the targeted group (21.52min SD 8.73) this difference was not significant. One detached band episode was documented in targeted group and none in the conventional group (p=0.418). TIPS were not used during this study due to health system policy. There were no significant differences in mortality, rebleeding or transfusion requirements between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The targeted technique for EV with stigma of recent bleeding had a low band detachment incidence and fewer bleeding events during endoscopy, however, the limitations of the study should be considered.

Emergencies in paediatric hepatology

The aetiology of several liver diseases in children is age specific and many of these conditions have significant and potentially long-term clinical repercussions if not diagnosed early and managed in a timely fashion. We address 5 clinical scenarios that cover most of the diagnostic and therapeutic emergencies in children: infants with liver disease; acute liver failure; management of bleeding varices; liver-based metabolic disorders; and liver tumours and trauma. A wide spectrum of conditions that cause liver disease in infants may present as conjugated jaundice, which could be the only symptom of time-sensitive disorders - such as biliary atresia, metabolic disorders, infections, and haematological/alloimmune disorders - wherein algorithmic multistage testing is required for accurate diagnosis. In infantile cholestasis, algorithmic multistage tests are necessary for an accurate early diagnosis, while vitamin K, specific milk formulae and disease-specific medications are essential to avoid mortality and long-term morbidity. Management of paediatric acute liver failure requires co-ordination with a liver transplant centre, safe transport and detailed age-specific aetiological work-up - clinical stabilisation with appropriate supportive care is central to survival if transplantation is indicated. Gastrointestinal bleeding may present as the initial manifestation or during follow-up in patients with portal vein thrombosis or chronic liver disease and can be managed pharmacologically, or with endoscopic/radiological interventions. Liver-based inborn errors of metabolism may present as encephalopathy that needs to be recognised and treated early to avoid further neurological sequelae and death. Liver tumours and liver trauma are both rare occurrences in children and are best managed by a multidisciplinary team in a specialist centre.

Inferior load generated by preloaded versus manually loaded haemorrhoid banding devices: the effect of 'creep relaxation'

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of rubber band ligation of haemorrhoids relies on the load generated on haemorrhoidal tissue by bands as they return to their preformed shape after being deployed. 'Preloaded' haemorrhoid banding devices are widely available, but the effect of the resultant prolonged stretch on bands while stored in this manner has never been examined by comparing these to manually loaded devices, which are stretch immediately prior to being deployed. A difference could have clinical relevance, potentially resulting in a higher rate of clinical failure. The present study aimed to investigate any difference in load generated by preloaded versus manually loaded devices.

METHODS

A preloaded and a manually loaded device were selected for comparison. Each type was measured on a testing rig. The device type, load generated by each band and the time to expiry were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 137 haemorrhoid bands were tested: 66 preloaded and 71 manually loaded. There was a statistically significant overall reduction in load generated by preloaded versus manually loaded devices (284.0 versus 272.1 g, mean difference -11.9 g, 95% confidence interval -17.5 to -6.3 g, P = 0.0001). Adjusted for time, the load generated by preloaded bands fell 3.7 g (95% confidence interval 2.7-4.8, P < 0.001) for each month closer to the expiry date.

CONCLUSIONS

The load generated by haemorrhoid bands from preloaded devices is lower and deteriorates significantly towards their expiry date compared with bands from manually loaded devices. This is mostly likely due to their storage in a stretched state. This should be considered by clinicians when using haemorrhoid banding devices.

ASGE technology committee, Parsi MA, Schulman AR, Aslanian HR, Bhutani MS, Krishnan K, Lichtenstein DR, Melson J, Navaneethan U, Pannala R, Sethi A, Trikudanathan G, Trindade AJ, Watson RR, Maple JT, ASGE Technology Committee Chair. Devices for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal GI bleeding (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for GI nonvariceal bleeding. Although some of the devices and techniques used for this purpose have been well studied, others are relatively new, with few available outcomes data.

METHODS

In this document, we review devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding, the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety, and financial considerations for their use.

RESULTS

Devices used for endoscopic hemostasis in the GI tract can be classified into injection devices (needles), thermal devices (multipolar/bipolar probes, hemostatic forceps, heater probe, argon plasma coagulation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryotherapy), mechanical devices (clips, suturing devices, banding devices, stents), and topical devices (hemostatic sprays).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic evaluation and treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of nonvariceal upper- and lower-GI bleeding. A variety of devices is available for hemostasis of bleeding lesions in the GI tract. Other than injection therapy, which should not be used as monotherapy, there are few compelling data that strongly favor any one device over another. For endoscopists, the choice of a hemostatic device should depend on the type and location of the bleeding lesion, the availability of equipment and expertise, and the cost of the device.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

The Evaluation and Office Management of Hemorrhoids for the Gastroenterologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hemorrhoid disease is extremely common, and seldom requires surgical intervention. The vast majority of patients can be cared for in the office setting and by the gastroenterologist. This piece aims to summarize the epidemiology and pathophysiology of hemorrhoid disease, along with the proper evaluation and office-based treatment of these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most GI fellowship training programs spend little time on these topics, and the recommendation has been made to include anorectal care in the GI's "core curriculum." The use of the anoscope and a proper anorectal examination are keys to evaluating these patients, and the techniques available to treat these patients are described. Often overlooked in these patients are other anorectal issues that occur alongside hemorrhoidal issues very commonly-the most common being anal fissure. Comprehensive management of all of these issues will allow all but the most severely affected patients to avoid the expense and morbidity of surgical intervention. The anatomy, etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and non-surgical treatment of hemorrhoid disease are presented with the gastroenterologist in mind.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Hemostatic powder spray: a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding is often challenging, depending on its location and severity. To date, widely accepted hemostatic treatment options include injection of epinephrine and tissue adhesives such as cyanoacrylate, ablative therapy with contact modalities such as thermal coagulation with heater probe and bipolar hemostatic forceps, noncontact modalities such as photodynamic therapy and argon plasma coagulation, and mechanical hemostasis with band ligation, endoscopic hemoclips, and over-the-scope clips. These approaches, albeit effective in achieving hemostasis, are associated with a 5-10% rebleeding risk. New simple, effective, universal, and safe methods are needed to address some of the challenges posed by the current endoscopic hemostatic techniques. The use of a novel hemostatic powder spray appears to be effective and safe in controlling upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although initial reports of hemostatic powder spray as an innovative approach to manage gastrointestinal bleeding are promising, further studies are needed to support and confirm its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of hemostatic powder spray (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA) as a new method for managing gastrointestinal bleeding. In this review article, we performed an extensive literature search summarizing case reports and case series of Hemospray for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. Indications, features, technique, deployment, success rate, complications, and limitations are discussed. The combined technical and clinical success rate of Hemospray was 88.5% (207/234) among the human subjects and 81.8% (9/11) among the porcine models studied. Rebleeding occurred within 72 hours post-treatment in 38 patients (38/234; 16.2%) and in three porcine models (3/11; 27.3%). No procedure-related adverse events were associated with the use of Hemospray. Hemospray appears to be a safe and effective approach in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Achieving hemostasis and the risks associated with therapy

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a common cause for hospitalization. Endoscopic hemostasis plays a central role in the management of lesions with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis rely on the identification of lesions suitable for endoscopic therapy, selection of the appropriate hemostatic devices, attention to technique, and prompt recognition and management of procedure-related adverse events. In this article, practical applications of hemostatic devices and pitfalls related to endoscopic hemostasis are discussed.

Siddiqui UD, Barth BA, Banerjee S, Bhat YM, Chauhan SS, Gottlieb KT, Konda V, Maple JT, Murad FM, Pfau P, Pleskow D, Tokar JL, Wang A, Rodriguez SA. Devices for the endoscopic treatment of hemorrhoids

Multiple endoscopic methods are available to treat symptomatic internal hemorrhoids. Because of its low cost, ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and relative effectiveness, RBL is currently the most widely used technique.

Endoscopic band ligation: beyond prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the preferred endoscopic technique for the endoscopic treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. EBL has also been used to treat nonvariceal bleeding. Recently, Han et al demonstrated that EBL can be a feasible and safe alternate technique for the management of iatrogenic gastric perforation especially in cases in which closure with endoclips is difficult. EBL is technically simpler to perform than other methods and provides a good view of the lesions under direct pressure and suction from the transparent ligation cap. EBL can be used even if the diameter of the perforation is greater than 10 mm or if there is a severe tangential angle. In this commentary, we discuss the efficacy and safety of EBL for the closure of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of EBL for the treatment of nonvariceal bleeding.

Splenic artery embolization in a woman with bleeding gastric varices and splenic vein thrombosis: a case report

Introduction

Gastric variceal bleeding due to splenic vein thrombosis is a life-threatening situation and is often difficult to manage by endoscopy. In the worst cases, an emergency splenectomy may be required to stop variceal bleeding.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 60-year-old Caucasian woman with bleeding gastric varices secondary to splenic vein thrombosis treated by splenic artery embolization. Successful embolization was performed by depositing coils into the splenic artery resulting in cessation of variceal bleeding. After embolization there was no recurrence of bleeding.

Conclusion

Splenic artery embolization can be an effective and definite treatment for variceal bleeding secondary to splenic vein thrombosis.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.