Sclerotherapy plus ligation versus ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices: a prospective randomized study

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with polidocanol for cardiac varices in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Like esophageal varices, cardiac varices are often treated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). However, we previously reported that EVL for cardiac varices may be associated with a high risk of rebleeding from the ulcer if the O-ring spontaneously drops off early. The efficacy and safety of para-variceal endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) with polidocanol for the treatment of cardiac varices in children and adolescents were evaluated.

METHODS

Eleven patients under 18 years of age with portal hypertension who underwent para-variceal EIS with polidocanol for cardiac varices with red signs, which were considered to be at high risk of bleeding, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

One session of para-variceal polidocanol-EIS was performed for each of the 11 patients. One patient experienced temporary hypoxia due to aspiration of saliva when the tracheal intubation tube was removed after the procedure but recovered by endotracheal suctioning; there were no other adverse events. In six of the eight cases in which efficacy could be evaluated, eradication of cardiac varices was achieved.

CONCLUSION

Para-variceal polidocanol-EIS may be considered instead of EVL for small cardiac varices with red signs in pediatric patients with cardiac varices.

Esophageal variceal ligation plus sclerotherapy vs. ligation alone for the treatment of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) vs. EVL combined with endoscopic injection sclerosis (EIS) in the therapy of esophageal varices.

METHODS

Patients from January 2017 to August 2021 who received EVL alone (control group) or EVL plus EIS (intervention group) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Efficacy, including rebleeding (clinically hematemesis or melena, confirmed by endoscopy as esophagogastric varices bleeding), variceal recurrence rate (the presence of esophagogastric varices which is needed to be treated again) the number of sessions performed to complete eradication of varices, and safety (adverse events) were compared. The variceal recurrence-associated factors were derived by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The variceal recurrence and rebleeding rate in the intervention group showed significantly lower than the control group (2.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.006 and 20.7% vs 37.5%, P = 0.029, P = 0.006, respectively, in the 12-month follow-up). The adverse events (fever, chest pain, swallowing, and esophageal stricture) showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Further research showed that the efficacy of the intervention group was better than the control group only achieved in prophylactically endoscopic treatment patients. The diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices co-exist showed significant effects on variceal recurrence in intervention group [odds ratio (OR) = 15.856; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.709-160.143; P = 0.016 and OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.42-20.028; P = 0.021; respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention group may obtain lower recurrence, rebleeding rate, and fewer sessions performed to complete eradication of varices (number of sessions) and similar incidence of adverse events, especially for prophylactically treatment. Among the intervention group, the diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices were closely associated with variceal recurrence.

Efficacy and Safety of Ligation Combined With Sclerotherapy for Patients With Acute Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation + endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EVL+EIS) to control acute variceal bleeding (AVB). Methods: Online databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) disc, VIP, and Wanfang, were searched to identify the studies comparing the differences between EVB+EIS and EVB, EIS from the inception of the databases up to December 30, 2020. STATA 13.0 was used for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of eight studies involving 595 patients (317 patients in the EVL group and 278 patients in the EVL+EIS group) were included. The results of the meta-analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the efficacy of acute bleeding control (P = 0.981), overall rebleeding (P = 0.415), variceal eradication (P = 0.960), and overall mortality (P = 0.314), but a significant difference was noted in the overall complications (P = 0.01). Conclusion: EVL is superior to the combination of EVL and EIS in safety, while no statistically significant differences were detected in efficacy. Further studies should be designed with a large sample size, multiple centers, and randomized controlled trials to assess both clinical interventions.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Management of portal hypertension based on portal hemodynamics

Portal hypertension is most commonly caused by chronic liver disease. As liver damage progresses, portal pressure gradually elevates and hemodynamics of the portal system gradually change. In normal liver, venous returns from visceral organs join the portal trunk and flow into the liver (hepatopetal blood flow). As portal pressure increases due to liver damage, congestion of some veins of the visceral organ occurs (blood flow to and from). Finally, the direction of some veins (the left gastric vein in particular) of the visceral organ change (hepatofugal blood flow) and develop as collateral veins (portosystemic shunt) to reduce portal pressure. Therefore, esophagogastric varices serve as drainage veins for the portal venous system to reduce the portal pressure. In chronic liver disease, as intrahepatic vascular resistance is increased (backward flow theory) and collateral veins develop, adequate portal hypertension is required to maintain portal flow into the liver through an increase of blood flow into the portal venous system (forward flow theory). Splanchnic and systemic arterial vasodilatations increase the blood flow into the portal venous system (hyperdynamic state) and lead to portal hypertension and collateral formation. Hyperdynamic state, especially around the spleen, is detected in patients with portal hypertension. The spleen is a regulatory organ that maintains portal flow into the liver. In this review, surgical treatment, interventional radiology, endoscopic treatment, and pharmacotherapy for portal hypertension (esophagogastric varices in particular) are described based on the portal hemodynamics using schema.

Transparent cap-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of patients with esophageal varices

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) versus direct EIS in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.This retrospective study included patients with cirrhosis and esophageal variceal bleeding who underwent EIS with or without the use of a transparent cap at Shandong Provincial Hospital between December 2014 and April 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (EIS with transparent cap, n = 50) and Group B (direct EIS, n = 45). Data collected included patients' demographics, procedure details, and rates of variceal eradication, variceal rebleeding, variceal recurrence, and survival during the follow-up period. All data were expressed as mean ± SD. Quantitative variables were compared with Student t test; qualitative variables were compared with the Fisher exact test or chi-square test. P values less than .05 were considered significant.The mean follow-up duration was similar in both groups (16.3 ± 10.2 mo in Group A and 15.5 ± 9.5 mo in Group B). The volume of sclerosant (64.86 ± 10.62 vs 104.73 ± 21.25 ml, P = .044), mean number of sessions (2.37 ± 1.15 vs 5.70 ± 1.57, P = .042), time required to perform endoscopic treatment (6.57 ± 1.50 vs 11.22 ± 2.29 minutes, P = .049), and time to initial esophageal varices eradication (5.43 ± 1.38 vs 8.93 ± 1.5 wk, P = .041) were significantly smaller in the cap-assisted EIS group than in the direct EIS group. The probability of variceal recurrence and rebleeding was significantly higher in the direct EIS group than in the cap-assisted EIS group (14% versus 35.6% and 20% versus 40%). Only 22 patients (44%) developed complications in the cap-assisted group versus 30 patients (66.7%) in the EIS group (P = .039). The probability of survival was similar in both groups (86% versus 75.6%, P = .133).Modified EIS with the use of a transparent cap resulted in lower rates of esophageal variceal recurrence, rebleeding, and complications, compared with direct EIS.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

Favorable Effects of Endoscopic Ligation Combined with Drugs on Rebleeding and Mortality in Cirrhotic Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the effects of combination therapies (endoscopic plus drug[s], drug combinations) on variceal/any-cause rebleeding and mortality among cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage.

SUMMARY

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible studies. We included 26 randomized controlled trials involving 2,536 adults using OR to measure the effects. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus nadolol ranked first for reducing recurrent bleeds. Both EVL + nadolol and EVL + drugs (nadolol, sucralfate) decreased the risk of any-cause rebleeding than EVL alone (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.97; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.88, respectively). Meanwhile, EVL + drugs ranked first lowering mortality rates (P-score >0.85) with a marginal superiority over EVL alone (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.01). Beta-blockers with isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) also reached a marginal superiority (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09) for improving mortality. Key Messages: Our findings indicated that EVL + nadolol might be the preferred choice to cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage for preventing rebleeding. EVL + nadolol + sucralfate and beta-blockers + ISMN may be potential alternatives to improve mortality. Further, well-controlled studies are warranted to compare the promising combination therapies.

Endoscopic Variceal Ligation followed by Argon Plasma Coagulation Against Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Alone: A Randomized Controlled Trial

GOALS

Our aim was to study the efficacy and the safety of argon plasma coagulation (APC) in secondary prophylaxis against esophageal varices in view of many contraindications and side effects to β-blockers in cirrhotic patients.

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding rates from esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are high; thus, the current recommendation is to combine nonselective β-blockers to it, but side effects and relative contraindications to nonselective β-blockers hinder their usage or require discontinuation in 15% to 20% of the cirrhotic patients. Thus, it is important to find another combination.

STUDY

This study included all patients admitted to the Alexandria Main University Hospital during the period between April 2012 and October 2012 with variceal bleeding. After exclusions, the total number of included patients was 40. All participants were subjected to EVL and eradication of varices, and then they were randomized to either APC (group 1) or just observation (group 2). Both groups were followed up by endoscopy every 3 months for 30 months.

RESULTS

During the 2.5-year follow-up, 21% of the participants in group 1 experienced esophageal variceal recurrence, but no one needed rebanding. In group 2, 68.4% of the participants experienced esophageal variceal recurrence (P=0.003) and 63.2% underwent rebanding (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

APC after esophageal variceal eradication using EVL can decrease the risk of recurrence of esophageal varices and the need for rebanding. This technique may be recommended in secondary prophylaxis against esophageal variceal bleeding in those who have contraindications, are intolerant, or are noncompliant to nonselective β-blockers.

A Prospective Study of Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy and Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in the Treatment of Esophageal Varices

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, we compared the EIS and EVL in 124 patients who had endoscopically proved bleeding from esophageal varices. According to different treatment methods, they were randomly divided into the EIS and the EVL groups. Sixty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 60 with ligation. The patients were followed for a mean of 2 years, during which we determined the incidence of complications and recurrences of bleeding and the number of treatment sessions needed to eradicate varices, mortality, and survival.

RESULTS

Active bleeding at the first treatment was controlled by EIS in 19 of 19 patients and by EVL in 16 of 16 patients. The likelihood of early rebleeding was slightly smaller in the patients treated with EIS (7.8% versus 11.7%, P = .47). However, late rebleeding rate was slightly more in EIS patients (28.1% versus 23.3%, P = .54) without statistical significance. The rate of eradication of varices in the EIS group was slightly lower than in the EVL group (79.7% versus 86.7%, P = .30). There were also no statistically significant differences in mortality (1.6% versus 3.3%, P = .61) or survival rate (71.9% versus 78.3%, P = .41) (all P > .05) after EIS and EVL. However, fever in the EIS group was significantly higher compared to that of in the EVL group (n = 17, 26.6% versus n = 6, 10.0%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EIS and EVL produce excellent results, are safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable for EVB with minimum complications and obviate need for subsequent procedures in the short term. To make better choice, we should consider the hospital conditions, operator experience, and the characteristics of esophageal varices.

The surgical treatment for portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim. To compare the effectiveness of surgical procedures (selective or nonselective shunt, devascularization, and combined shunt and devascularization) in preventing recurrent variceal bleeding and other complications in patients with portal hypertension. Methods. A systematic literature search of the Medline and Cochrane Library databases was carried out, and a meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Quality of Reporting Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement. Results. There were a significantly higher reduction in rebleeding, yet a significantly more common encephalopathy (P = 0.05) in patients who underwent the shunt procedure compared with patients who had only a devascularization procedure. Further, there were no significant differences in rebleeding, late mortality, and encephalopathy between selective versus non-selective shunt. Next, the decrease of portal vein pressure, portal vein diameter, and free portal pressure in patients who underwent combined treatment with shunt and devascularization was more pronounced compared with patients who were treated with devascularization alone (P < 0.05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis shows clinical advantages of combined shunt and devascularization over devascularization in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding and other complications in patients with portal hypertension.

Efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for the treatment of esophageal varices

AIM: To assess the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for the treatment of esophageal varices.

METHODS: The patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) combined with partial splenic embolization (PSE) and endoscopic variceal ligation only. The cure rate, recurrence rate, and rebleeding rate of esophageal varices were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: At 6 and 12 mo after treatment, the cure rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs 60.5%, 71.0% vs 45.9%, P = 0.033, 0.038) and the recurrence rate was significantly lower (12.9% vs 34.2%, 22.6% vs 48.6%, P = 0.041, 0.026) in the combination group than in the EVL group. At 12 mo after treatment, the rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the combination group than in the EVL group (9.7% vs 32.4%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION: The medium and long-term efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for esophageal varices is better than that of endoscopic variceal ligation alone, and the combination treatment was associated with a higher cure rate and lower recurrence rate and rebleeding rate.

The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices

The rate of rebleeding from esophageal varices remains appreciably high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. Endoscopic therapy plays a central role in the prevention of variceal bleeding. In the 1980s sclerotherapy played a pivotal role in the prevention of variceal rebleeding, but now yields to endoscopic variceal ligation. Compared with sclerotherapy, a lower incidence of complications and rebleeding is associated with banding ligation. On the other hand, beta-blockers are also noted to be able to reduce portal pressure, leading to the reduction of variceal rebleeding. The reduction of variceal rebleeding with beta-blockers plus nitrates is as effective as banding ligation. The combination of beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation has proven to be more efficacious than banding ligation alone in the reduction of variceal rebleeding and is the treatment of choice for patients with failure in either medical or endoscopic therapy. Patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapies may require transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt or shunt operation as a rescue therapy.

New trends in surgical treatment for portal hypertension

A number of surgical procedures have been developed to manage esophageal varices. Broadly, these can be classified as shunting and non-shunting procedures. While total shunt effectively reduces the incidence of variceal bleeding, it is associated with a high risk of hepatic encephalopathy. The distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), a selective shunt, was developed by Warren in 1967 to preserve portal blood flow through the liver while lowering variceal pressure. The hope was that both bleeding and hyperammonemia would be prevented. The DSRS effectively prevents rebleeding, but still carries a risk of hyperammonemia. We improved the DSRS procedure by additionally performing splenopancreatic disconnection (SPD, i.e. skeletonization of the splenic vein from the pancreas to its bifurcation at the splenic hilum) and gastric transection (GT, i.e. transection and anastomosis of the upper stomach with an autosuture instrument). An alternative to shunting was developed by Sugiura and Futagawa in 1973. Esophageal transection (ET) divides and reanastomoses the distal esophagus and devascularizes the distal esophagus and proximal stomach; splenectomy, selective vagotomy, and pyloroplasty are performed concomitantly. DSRS was more effective than ET in preventing recurrence of esophageal varices, but was associated with a higher incidence of hyperammonemia. The incidence of hyperammonemia in patients who underwent DSRS with SPD plus GT was significantly lower than that in patients who underwent DSRS alone or those who underwent DSRS with SPD. In conclusion, there are various surgical treatments for esophagogastric varices. Distal splenorenal shunt with SPD plus GT is considered an adequate treatment for patients with esophagogastric varices.

A meta-analysis of endoscopic sequential ligation plus sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal varices

AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic sequential ligation plus sclerotherapy(EVLS) for esophageal varices (EV).

METHODS: Relevant research articles about randomized controlled trials of sequential endoscopic ligation plus sclerotherapy for esophageal varices from Januray 1997 to December 2007 were retrieved from PubMed, Vip database and China Biological Medicine Disk.Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included articles and abstracted the data. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 4.2 software.

RESULTS: According to the enrollment criteria, eleven prospective, randomized controlled clinica1 trials were finally selected. Comparison between EVLS and EVL showed a significant decrease in recurrence rate of EV (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25-0.55, P< 0.01) and a significant higher disappearance rate of EV (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23, P = 0.001) in EVLS group, wheras, no significant difference was seen in the risks of esophageal varices rebleeding, complications and mortality. Comparison between EVLS and EVS showed a significant reduction in complication incidence (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.75, P = 0.001) and a higher disappearance rate of EV (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, P = 0. 004) in EVLS group, wheras, no significant difference was seen in the risk of esophageal varices rebleeding, recurrence of EV or mortality.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic sequential ligation plus sclerotherapy with better efficacy and lower complication incidence should be recommended for patients with esophageal varices.

Central retinal and posterior ciliary artery occlusion after intralesional injection of sclerosant to glabellar subcutaneous hemangioma

The aim of this study is to describe vision loss caused by central retinal artery and posterior ciliary artery occlusion as a consequence of sclerotherapy with a polidocanol injection to a glabellar hemangioma. An 18-year-old man underwent direct injection with a 23-gauge needle of 1 mL of a polidocanol-carbon dioxide emulsion into the glabellar subcutaneous hemangioma under ultrasound visualization of the needle tip by radiologists. He developed lid swelling the next day, and 3 days later at referral, the visual acuity in the left eye was no light perception. Funduscopy revealed central retinal artery occlusion and fluorescein angiography disclosed no perfusion at all in the left fundus, indicating concurrent posterior ciliary artery occlusion. The patient also showed mydriasis, blepharoptosis, and total external ophthalmoplegia on the left side. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated the swollen medial rectus muscle. In a month, blepharoptosis and ophthalmoplegia resolved but the visual acuity remained no light perception. Sclerosing therapy for facial hemangioma may develop a severe complication such as permanent visual loss.

Comparison among endoscopic variceal slerotheropy, endoscopic variceal slerotheropy with sequential endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy, and endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy for esophageal varicosis

AIM: To compare the efficacies for esophageal varicosis treated by endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVS), endoscopic variceal slerotheropy with sequential endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVS + EVL + EVS), and endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVL + EVS).

METHODS: One hundred and thirty type B viral hepatitis-caused liver cirrhosis patients complicated with esophageal bleeding were allocated into 3 groups: 50 cases in EVS group, 40 in EVS + EVL + EVS group, and 40 in EVL + EVS group.

RESULTS: The cure rate of varicosis was not significantly different among these three groups. The amount of sclerosant, time of therapy and in-hospital days were significantly higher in EVS group than the other two groups (95.64 ± 37.51 mL vs 55.90 ± 38.93 mL, 32.15 ± 26.97 mL; 3.64 ± 1.32 vs 1.85 ± 1.18, 1.35 ± 0.88; 25.92 ± 8.69 d vs 20.6 ± 5.00 d, 17.55 ± 4.62 d; all P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between EVS + EVL + EVS group and EVL + EVS group. Varicosis recurrence was more frequently happened in EVL + EVS group than that in the other groups (45% vs 12%, 20%, P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the later two groups. No significant difference was observed in the rate of repeated bleeding and complications among these groups.

CONCLUSION: The efficacy of EVS + EVL + EVS and EVL + EVS, especially EVS + EVL + EVS, are superior to that of EVS.

New methods for the management of esophageal varices

Bleeding from esophageal varices (EVs) is a catastrophic complication of chronic liver disease. Many years ago, surgical procedures such as esophageal transection or distal splenorenal shunting were the only treatments for EVs. In the 1970s, interventional radiology procedures such as transportal obliteration, left gastric artery embolization, and partial splenic artery embolization were introduced, improving the survival of patients with bleeding EVs. In the 1980s, endoscopic treatment, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS), and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), further contributed to improved survival. We combined IVR with endoscopic treatment or EIS with EVL. Most patients with EVs treated endoscopically required follow-up treatment for recurrent varices. Proper management of recurrent EVs can significantly improve patients’ quality of life. Recently, we have performed EVL at 2-mo (bi-monthly) intervals for the management of EVs. Longer intervals between treatment sessions resulted in a higher rate of total eradication and lower rates of recurrence and additional treatment.

New methods for the management of gastric varices

Bleeding from gastric varices has been successfully treated by endoscopic modalities. Once the bleeding from the gastric varices is stabilized, endoscopic treatment and/or interventional radiology should be performed to eradicate varices completely. Partial splenic artery embolization is a supplemental treatment to prolong the obliteration of the veins feeding and/or draining the varices. The overall incidence of bleeding from gastric varices is lower than that from esophageal varices. No studies to date have definitively characterized the causal factors behind bleeding from gastric varices. The initial episodes of bleeding from esophageal varices or gastric varices without prior treatment may be at least partly triggered by a violation of the mucosal barrier overlying varices. This is especially likely in the case of varices of the fundus. In view of the high rate of hemostasis achieved among bleeding gastric varices, treatment should be administered in selective cases. Among untreated cases, steps to prevent gastric mucosal injury confer very important protection against gastric variceal bleeding.

Sclerotherapy for gastric fundal variceal bleeding: is complete obliteration possible without cyanoacrylate?

BACKGROUND

Many studies have suggested that endoscopic obliteration using cyanoacrylate for bleeding gastric fundal varices is effective. However, serious complications by injection of cyanoacrylate into varices have also been reported.

METHODS

Thirty patients with bleeding gastric fundal varices underwent endoscopic injection sclerotherapy using 5% ethanolamine oleate under fluoroscopic guidance plus infusion of vasopressin and a transdermal nitroglycerin patch. The injection of 5% ethanolamine oleate was continued until it filled the varices and their feeder veins under fluoroscopic guidance. The injection needle was removed while thrombin glue was sprayed at the puncture site through the side hole of the injector needle to prevent bleeding from the puncture site.

RESULTS

Complete hemostasis was achieved in 28/30 patients (93.3%). The cumulative rebleeding rate after 1, 3 and 5 years was 13%, 19% and 19%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative mortality rates were 31%, 54% and 59%, respectively. There was no complication related to infusion of vasopressin and sclerotherapy procedure.

CONCLUSION

The sclerotherapy method carried out using 5% ethanolamine oleate combined with infusion of vasopressin under fluoroscopic guidance might be a feasible method for obliteration of gastric fundal varices as an alternative to cyanoacrylate.

A randomized control trial of bi-monthly versus bi-weekly endoscopic variceal ligation of esophageal varices

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a safe and simple procedure now being used on a widening scale. Yet most patients who undergo endoscopic treatment for esophageal varices eventually require additional treatment for recurrent varices. In this study, we investigated and compared the efficacy and long-term results of EVL performed in three treatments with a total of sixteen O-rings at two different intervals; bi-weekly (once every 2 wk: the conventional interval) and bi-monthly (once every 2 months). A total of 63 patients with esophageal varices were randomly assigned to groups receiving bi-weekly or bi-monthly EVL treatment. Optimal medical therapy was assessed by one medical doctor who was unaware of the patients' treatment assignments. Three parameters of treatment outcome were evaluated: the rate of recurrence, rate of additional treatment, and overall survival. The overall rates of variceal recurrence and additional treatment were both higher in the bi-weekly group than in the bi-monthly group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, EVL performed for the treatment of esophageal varices at bi-monthly intervals brought about better results than the same treatment performed at bi-weekly intervals. The treatments intercalated by the longer interval obtained a higher total eradication rate, lower recurrence rate, and lower rate of additional treatment.

The Evolving Role of Endoscopic Treatment for Bleeding Esophageal Varices

The treatment of acute and recurrent variceal bleeding is best accomplished by a skilled, knowledgeable, and well-equipped team using a multidisciplinary integrated approach. Optimal management should provide the full spectrum of treatment options including pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiologic procedures, surgical shunts, and liver transplantation. Endoscopic therapy with either band ligation or injection sclerotherapy is an integral component of the management of acute variceal bleeding and of the long-term treatment of patients after a variceal bleed. Variceal eradication with endoscopic ligation requires fewer endoscopic treatment sessions and causes substantially less esophageal complications than does injection sclerotherapy. Although the incidence of early gastrointestinal rebleeding is reduced by endoscopic ligation in most studies, there is no overall survival benefit relative to injection sclerotherapy. Simultaneous combined ligation and sclerotherapy confers no advantage over ligation alone. A sequential staged approach with initial endoscopic ligation followed by sclerotherapy when varices are small may prove to be the optimal method of reducing variceal recurrence. Overall, current data demonstrate clear advantages for using ligation in preference to sclerotherapy. Ligation should therefore be considered the endoscopic treatment of choice in the treatment of esophageal varices.

N/A

N/A

The cost-effectiveness of hepatic venous pressure gradient monitoring in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent variceal hemorrhage is common following an initial bleed in patients with cirrhosis. The current standard of care for secondary prophylaxis is endoscopic band ligation (EBL). Combination of beta-blocker and nitrate therapy, guided by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring, is a novel alternative strategy. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of these competing strategies.

METHODS

Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of three competing strategies: (1) EBL; (2) beta-blocker and nitrate therapy without HVPG monitoring (HVPG-); and (3) beta-blocker and nitrate therapy with HVPG monitoring (HVPG+). Patients in the HVPG+ strategy who failed to achieve an HVPG decline from medical therapy were offered EBL. Cost estimates were from a third-party payer perspective. The main outcome measure was the cost per recurrent variceal hemorrhage prevented.

RESULTS

Under base-case conditions, the HVPG+ strategy was the most effective yet most expensive approach, followed by EBL and HVPG-. Compared to the EBL strategy, the HVPG+ strategy cost an incremental 5,974 dollars per recurrent bleed prevented. In a population with 100% compliance with all therapies, the incremental cost of HVPG-versus EBL fell to 5,270 dollars per recurrent bleed prevented. The model results were sensitive to the cost of EBL, the cost of HVPG monitoring, and the probability of medical therapy producing an adequate HVPG decline.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to EBL for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding, combination medical therapy guided by HVPG monitoring is more effective and only marginally more expensive.

Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Meta analysis of propranolol effects on gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

AIM: To assess the effects of propranolol as compared with placebo on gastrointestinal hemorrhage and total mortality in cirrhotic patients by using meta analysis of 20 published randomized clinical trials.

METHODS: A meta analysis of published randomized clinical trials was designed. Published articles were selected for study based on a computerized MEDLINE and a manual search of the bibliographies of relevant articles. Data from 20 relevant studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were retrieved by means of computerized and manual search. The reported data were extracted on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle, and treatment effects were measured as risk differences between propranolol and placebo. Pooled estimates were computed according to a random-effects model. We evaluated the pooled efficacy of propranolol on the risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and the total mortality.

RESULTS: A total of 1859 patients were included in 20 trials, 931 in the propranolol groups and 928 as controls. Among the 652 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage, 261 patients were treated with propranolol, and 396 patients were treated with placebo or non-treated. Pooled risk differences of gastrointestinal hemorrhage were -18% [95%CI, -25%, -10%] in all trials, -11% [95%CI, -21%, -1%] in primary prevention trials, and -25% [95%CI, -39%, -10%] in secondary prevention trials. A total of 440 patients died, 188 in propranolol groups and 252 in control groups. Pooled risk differences of total death were -7% [95%CI, -12%, -3%] in all trials, -9% [95%CI, -18%, -1%] in primary prevention trials, and -5% [95%CI, -9%, -1%] in secondary prevention trials.

CONCLUSION: Propranolol can markedly reduce the risks of both primary and recurrent gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and also the total mortality.

A new technique of combined endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation for variceal bleeding

AIM: To develop a technique of combined endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation (ESL) in which both techniques of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) can be optimally used.

METHODS: ESL was performed in 10 patients (age 46.4 ± 7.9; 9 males, 1 female) with cirrhosis of liver using sclerotherapy needle and Speedband, Superview multiple band ligater (Boston Scientific, Microvasive, Watertown, MA). A single band was placed 5-10 cm proximal to the gastro-esophageal junction over each varix from proximal to distal margin, followed by intravariceal injection of 1.5% ethoxysclerol (4 ml each) 2 to 3 cm proximal to the gastroesophageal junction on the ligated varices distal to deployed band. EVL was then performed at the injection site. Similarly other varices were also injected and ligated from distal to proximally. In the subsequent sessions, ES alone was performed to sclerose small varices at the gastroesophageal junction.

RESULTS: ESL was successfully performed in all patients. A median of 3 (ESL 1, ES 2) sessions (ranged 1-4) were required to eradicate the varices in 9 (90%) of 10 patients. Recurrence of varices without bleed was seen in 1 patient during a mean follow-up of 10.3 months (ranged 6-15). Two patients died of liver failure. None died of variceal bleeding. None of the patients had procedure related complications.

CONCLUSION: ESL may be useful in the fast eradication of esophageal varices. However, randomised controlled trials are required to find out its relative efficacy and impact on variceal recurrence in comparison to ES or EVL.

Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis: Is it ever cost effective?

Current guidelines for the management of patients with compensated cirrhosis recommend universal screening endoscopy followed by prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent initial hemorrhage in those found to have esophageal varices. However, the cost-effectiveness of this recommendation has not been established. Our objective was to determine whether screening endoscopy is cost-effective compared with empiric medical management in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 6 competing strategies: (1) universal screening endoscopy (EGD) followed by beta-blocker (BB) therapy (EGD-->BB) if varices are present, (2) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) (EGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (3) selective screening endoscopy (sEGD) in high risk patients followed by BB therapy if varices are present (sEGD-->BB), (4) selective screening endoscopy followed by EBL (sEGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (5) empiric beta-blocker therapy in all patients, and (6) no prophylactic therapy ("Do Nothing"). Cost estimates were from a third-party payer perspective. The main outcome measure was the cost per initial variceal hemorrhage prevented. The "Do Nothing" strategy was the least expensive yet least effective approach. Compared with the "Do Nothing" strategy, the empiric beta-blocker strategy cost an incremental $12,408 per additional variceal bleed prevented. Compared with the empiric beta-blocker strategy, in turn, both the EGD-->BB and the EGD-->EBL strategies cost over $175,000 more per additional bleed prevented. The sEGD-->BB and sEGD-->EBL strategies were more expensive and less effective than the empiric beta-blocker strategy. In conclusion, empiric beta-blocker therapy for the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage is a cost-effective measure, as the use of screening endoscopy to guide therapy adds significant cost with only marginal increase in effectiveness.

Management of bleeding in the cirrhotic patient

Important advances have been made in the management of variceal bleeding. Despite these advances, bleeding in the patient with cirrhosis remains one of the most demanding clinical challenges that a gastroenterologist or gastrointestinal surgeon may face. The aim is to identify the source of bleeding, control active bleeding and prevent rebleeding. This requires a multidisciplinary team, and the optimal management algorithm depends on the clinical circumstance of the patient and the local availability of endoscopic, radiological and surgical expertise. Injection sclerotherapy is effective in stopping acute variceal bleeding, but has the drawback of a high incidence of complications. Endoscopic variceal ligation is just as effective, and is associated with fewer complications. An overtube allows repeated introductions of the endoscope to be more tolerable for the patient and protects the airway against aspiration of blood; its use should be encouraged in patients with massive bleeding. Newer ligators can deliver multiple bands without removal of the scope but the high cost of these disposable devices limits their widespread use. Bleeding from gastric varices is even more challenging; the treatment of choice is injection with cyanoacrylate glue. To prevent rebleeding, beta-blockers are recommended for all patients with large varices (including those which have never bled). Injection sclerotherapy or band ligation, conducted at weekly intervals after the initial control of bleeding, is equally effective at obliterating varices and decreasing the risk of further hemorrhage; band ligation results in fewer complications. Other newer treatment modalities for variceal bleeding, such as somatostatin analogs, transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt and liver transplantation, offer more optimal approaches to control bleeding and prevent rebleeding, but may be prohibitively expensive. Even for the most affluent communities, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and resource rationing are important considerations in management of patients with cirrhosis complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding.

Endoscopic scleroligation is a superior new technique for preventing recurrence of esophageal varices

This study compared a new method, endoscopic scleroligation, intravariceal injection sclerotherapy followed by ligation plus extravariceal injection sclerotherapy, with ligation plus extravariceal injection sclerotherapy. Fifty-nine patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices were treated by endoscopic scleroligation (ESL group, n = 28) or ligation plus extravariceal injection sclerotherapy (EVL + extraEIS group, n = 31). The demographics and clinical characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar, as was the rate of complete eradication with initial treatment. However, the 1- and 3-year cumulative recurrence rates in the ESL group (3.8% and 22.4%) were very significantly lower than those in the EVL + extraEIS group (48.3% and 81.0%) (p < 0.0001). The overall survival rates in the two groups were similar. In conclusion, endoscopic scleroligation is superior to ligation plus extravariceal injection sclerotherapy in preventing variceal recurrence. The efficacy of intravariceal injection sclerotherapy before ligation is believed to arise from the eradication of feeder vessels.

A new "sandwich" method of combined endoscopic variceal ligation and sclerotherapy versus ligation alone in the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Variceal ligation is the optimum endoscopic method for treating esophageal variceal bleeding. However, both early and multiple recurrences of esophageal varices frequently follow ligation. The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether a new, combined endoscopic "sandwich" method (i.e., ligation-sclerotherapy-ligation) could achieve better results than ligation alone.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients with cirrhosis and acute or recent esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to undergo either the "sandwich" method or ligation alone (47 patients in each group).

RESULTS

The sclerosant was retained in the varices for more than 30 minutes in 7 of 8 patients undergoing the "sandwich" method plus radiographic contrast medium. Active bleeding was controlled with this new method (9/9) as efficiently as ligation (12/12). The rate of recurrent bleeding was similar for both methods. Multivariate analysis showed the necessity for the use of antibiotics (odds ratio 3.95: 95% CI [1.60, 9.76]) to be an independent factor for recurrent bleeding. Two patients in the "sandwich" group developed strictures, but the frequency of other complications did not differ between the 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed the cumulative probability of variceal recurrence was lower with the "sandwich" method (p = 0.0391). The survival rate and causes of death were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The "sandwich" method leads to longer retention of sclerosant in varices. This method is superior to ligation alone in terms of lower variceal recurrence rate and comparable to ligation with respect to hemostasis. However, it is unknown whether the lower recurrence rate of varices will persist long-term.

Management of acute variceal haemorrhage

Endoscopic therapy and in particular endoscopic variceal banding ligation, in experienced hands, is the treatment of choice for acute variceal bleeding which remains a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Pharmacological therapy with Glypressin or somatostatin can be useful to gain time when the endoscopic expertise is not available or to help to obtain a clearer endoscopic view. Transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic stent shunt is currently used for endoscopic failures, producing similar results with the surgical portacaval shunts. Which one of the two should be preferred, since they both work best in relatively compensated patients, should be a balance between the available surgical and radiological expertise, the urgency of the situation and the expected course of the disease.

Interventional procedures

During the past year, numerous articles were published on interventional procedures of the stomach, focusing on upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, gastric cancer, gastric outlet obstruction, and benign disease. In the area of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, early endoscopy is warranted for early therapeutic intervention and for triage. In patients with bleeding related to peptic ulcer disease, combination therapy (epinephrine injection in conjunction with electrocoagulation therapy) remains the standard of care. Hemoclipping is a new technique that may be helpful in cases in which conventional therapy fails. Repeat endoscopy should always be considered in patients in whom the first attempt at endoscopic therapy fails. In patients with bleeding related to portal hypertension, prophylactic antibiotics may decrease the risk of infections. Banding remains the therapy of choice for this group of patients. There is no documented benefit for combination therapy (banding and sclerotherapy). Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts may be helpful in the treatment of hypertensive portal gastropathy but not gastric vascular ectasias. In the area of gastric cancer, management revolves around staging. This can be accomplished best through the use of CT scan and endoscopic ultrasound. In patients with early limited disease, attempt at endoscopic mucosal resection should be considered. This technique can be performed in a variety of ways: the most common method seems to be through the use of a saline injection, to separate the mucosa-submucosal layer, followed by a cap-assisted snare resection with suction. The safety, efficacy, and outcome of this technique are reviewed. Gastric outlet obstruction remains a difficult problem to treat endoscopically. However, there is some evidence that endoscopic therapy may be successful in benign disease and should be considered prior to surgical intervention.

Endoscopic therapeutic esophageal interventions

At the close of the 20th century, therapeutic endoscopy in the esophagus has expanded to encompass a broad array of interventions. As the number of procedures grows, emphasis in the medical literature has begun to shift to analyses of which procedures should be performed. Many studies published in 1999 on topics ranging from endoscopic treatment of benign and malignant strictures, to variceal bleeding, to Barrett esophagus have focused on which of several methods provides the best long-term response with the fewest interventions. This is a review of the major published studies of endoscopic interventions in the esophagus as well as selected abstracts. The conclusions of these studies and reports of new endoscopic therapies draw a clear map of where nonoperative esophageal therapeutics are headed in the next several years.

The role of endoscopic therapy in the treatment of bleeding varices

The role of endoscopy in bleeding varices is both diagnostic and therapeutic. While sclerotherapy of oesophageal varices remains an established modality, ligation has, in view of its higher safety margin, turned out to be superior in recent years. The excellent initial results of ligation are, however, tainted by a higher recurrence rate in the long term. Since the end-point of treatment is the achievement and maintenance of variceal eradication, the addition of low-dose sclerotherapy following initial eradication by ligation seems to be the optimal method to combine the best of both techniques. In the management of life-threatening bleeding from oesophageal varices and gastric varices, cyanoacrylate remains the only promising non-surgical option. Primary endoscopic prophylaxis is still under evaluation. It is only justified in high-risk patients with large varices bearing red colour signs and in the presence of an intolerance of or contra-indication to propranolol. When indicated, ligation seems to be preferable, and the addition of low-dose sclerotherapy after initial variceal eradication may maintain the benefits accrued in such high-risk patients. The present review examines the available evidence regarding the above issues in the recent literature.