A pathophysiologic, gastroenterologic, and radiologic approach to the management of gastric varices

Endoscopic Glue Injection Versus Endoscopic Human Thrombin Injection for Bleeding Gastric Varices-A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Acute gastric variceal bleeding (AGVB) is a potentially fatal consequence of portal hypertension, accounting for 10% to 30% of all variceal bleeding. Although endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection is a common treatment for acute hemostasis, it has been linked to significant side effects. In the treatment of AGVB, there is limited evidence of the efficacy and relative safety of endoscopic human thrombin injection over glue injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 52 AGVB patients were randomized to receive either thrombin injection (25 patients) or glue injection (27 patients). The primary outcome was the incidence of any glue or thrombin injection-related post-therapy complications. Initial hemostasis, rebleeding, and mortality were all secondary end goals.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable baseline data. Hemostasis of active bleeding at endoscopy was 100.0% (10/10) in the thrombin group and 87.5% (7/8) in the glue group ( P =0.44). Treatment failure after 5 days occurred in 2 patients (6.1%) in the glue group compared with none in the thrombin group ( P =0.165). Between 6 and 42 days after index bleeding, rebleeding occurred in 4 patients in the thrombin group compared with 6 patients in the glue group ( P =0.728). In the thrombin group, none of the patients had post-treatment ulcers on gastric varices compared with 14.81% (4/27) that occurred in the glue group ( P =0.045), a statistically significant observation. Overall, complications occurred in 4 (20%) and 11 (40.7%) patients in the thrombin and glue groups, respectively ( P =0.105). Two patients in the glue group died.

CONCLUSION

To achieve successful AGVB hemostasis, endoscopic thrombin injection has been proven efficacious. However, glue injection may be linked to a higher rate of rebleeding and post-therapy gastric variceal ulceration compared with thrombin.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Cyanoacrylate Injection and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Prevention of Gastric Varices Rebleeding

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) and transjugular intrahepatic portal shunts (TIPSs) in the treatment of patients with cirrhosis with ruptured gastric varices.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 105 patients with liver cirrhosis and gastric varicose veins who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University between April 2018 and April 2023 without nonselective β-blockers treatment and no portal vein thrombosis were evaluated. The patients were divided into the transjugular intrahepatic portal shunt (TIPS) group (n = 60) and the EUS-CYA group (n = 45) for the purpose of evaluating postoperative rebleeding rates, complications, survival rates, and other factors.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rebleeding rates between the TIPS group and EUS-CYA group within 3 months (5% vs 2.2%; P= 0.825; 10% vs 20%, P= 0.147). However, the TIPS group had significantly lower rebleeding rates than the EUS-CYA group at 6 months (10% vs 33.3%; P= 0.030) and 1 year or longer (11.7% vs 42.2%; P < 0.01). In terms of hepatic encephalopathy, the incidence rate of the TIPS group was significantly higher than that of the EUS-CYA group (20% vs 2.2%; P= 0.006). In addition, there was no difference in the survival rates between the two groups (93.3% vs 97.8%; P= 0.552).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS is superior to EUS in preventing rebleeding in patients with ruptured varices of the fundus, but it has a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy, and there is no difference in long-term survival between the two groups.

Comparison of the management of gastric variceal bleeding techniques

Background and Aim

Managing gastric variceal (GV) hemorrhage is more complicated than managing esophageal variceal (EV) bleeding, resulting in significantly higher morbidity and mortality. We aim to compare the outcomes of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), transhepatic intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) in the management of GV bleeding.

Methods

We utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from January 2016 to December 2019 to include adult patients with GV hemorrhage.

Results

Our study identified 7160 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of GV hemorrhage who underwent the interventions of interest. EVL was performed in 69.83%, TIPS in 8.72%, and BRTO in 4.88%. Patients with liver cirrhosis had a higher frequency of undergoing BRTO (68.6%), followed by TIPS (64.0%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) + TIPS (63.7%) (P < 0.001). Patients with cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism had a higher prevalence of TIPS (62.4%), followed by EGD + TIPS (69.4%) and BRTO (52.9%) (P < 0.001). Overall, the inpatient mortality was 6.5%. Overall inpatient mortality was highest in the TIPS cohort (8.8%), followed by BRTO (7.1%), EGD + TIPS (6.5%), EVL (6.2%), and EGD + BRTO (2.8%) (P < 0.001); However, the Kaplan-Meier graph showed endoscopy with BRTO had the most favorable 30-day survival, trailed by TIPS alone and BRTO alone.

Conclusion

EVL remains a prominent therapeutic strategy. Remarkably, the combination of endoscopy with BRTO shows promising 30-day survival outcomes. Considering these observations, although EVL holds its primacy, it is essential to further explore the potential benefits of combined therapies in larger studies to ascertain the best treatment strategies.

Gastric varices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastric varices are a rare cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with portal hypertension. There have been significantly advances within endoscopic ultrasound for treatment of gastric varices over the past 5 years in addition to the conventional endoscopic and endovascular therapies. In this review, we will review the latest literature on gastric varices with emphasis on changes to the conventional classification systems and comparisons among the different treatment options for gastric varices in terms of efficacy and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been new guidelines proposed by the American Gastrointestinal Association on a simpler classification system compared to the conventional Sarin classification. In addition, endoscopic ultrasound guided coil embolization, a novel treatment pioneered over the past 5 years for gastric varices, has shown increased efficacy and reduced adverse event profile compared to cyanoacrylate glue, the more traditional therapy for gastric variceal bleeding. Options for endovascular therapy overall have not significantly changed over the recent years.

SUMMARY

Based on our literature review, we recommend a step-up approach with initial medical and endoscopic management with consideration of endovascular therapies when initial therapies fail.

EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: International multicentre propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted.

RESULTS

Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular interventions: An expanding paradigm

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has expanded its arena from a mere diagnostic modality to an essential therapeutic tool in managing gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The proximity of the GI tract to the vascular structures in the mediastinum and the abdomen has facilitated the growth of EUS in the field of vascular interventions. EUS provides important clinical and anatomical information related to the vessels' size, appearance and location. Its excellent spatial resolution, use of colour doppler with or without contrast enhancement and ability to provide images "real-time" helps in precision while intervening vascular structures. Additionally, structures such as venous collaterals or varices can be dealt with optimally using EUS. EUS-guided vascular therapy with coil and glue combination has revolutionized the management of portal hypertension. It also helps to avoid radiation exposure in addition to being minimally invasive. These advantages have led EUS to become an upcoming modality to complement traditional interventional radiology in the field of vascular interventions. EUS-guided portal vein (PV) access and therapy is a new kid on the block. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, injecting chemotherapy in PV and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has expanded the horizons of endo-hepatology. Lastly, EUS has also forayed into cardiac interventions allowing pericardial fluid aspiration and tumour biopsy with experimental data on access to valvular apparatus. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the expanding paradigm of EUS-guided vascular interventions in GI bleeding, portal vein access and its related therapeutic interventions, cardiac access, and therapy. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

Aluminum phosphate gel reduces early rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding treated with histoacryl injection therapy

BACKGROUND

Esophageal-gastro varices bleeding (EGVB) is the most widely known cause of mortality in individuals with cirrhosis, with an occurrence rate of 5% to 15%. Among them, gastric varices bleeding (GVB) is less frequent than esophageal varices bleeding (EVB), but the former is a more critical illness and has a higher mortality rate. At present, endoscopic variceal histoacryl injection therapy (EVHT) is safe and effective, and it has been recommended by relevant guidelines as the primary method for the treatment of GVB. However, gastric varices after endoscopic treatment still have a high rate of early rebleeding, which is mainly related to complications of its treatment, such as bleeding from drained ulcers, rebleeding of varices etc. Therefore, preventing early postoperative rebleeding is very important to improve the quality of patient survival and outcomes.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of aluminium phosphate gel (APG) combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in preventing early rebleeding after EVHT in individuals with GVB.

METHODS

Medical history of 196 individuals with GVB was obtained who were diagnosed using endoscopy and treated with EVHT in Shenzhen People's Hospital from January 2016 to December 2021. Based on the selection criteria, 101 patients were sorted into the PPI alone treatment group, and 95 patients were sorted into the PPI combined with the APG treatment group. The incidences of early rebleeding and corresponding complications within 6 wk after treatment were compared between both groups. Statistical methods were performed by two-sample t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and χ² test.

RESULTS

No major variations were noted between the individuals of the two groups in terms of age, gender, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, coagulation function, serum albumin, hemoglobin, type of gastric varices, the dose of tissue glue injection and EV that needed to be treated simultaneously. The early rebleeding rate in PPI + APG group was 3.16% (3/95), which was much lower than that in the PPI group (12.87%, 13/101) (P = 0.013). Causes of early rebleeding: the incidence of gastric ulcer bleeding in the PPI + APG group was 2.11% (2/95), which was reduced in comparison to that in the PPI group (11.88%, 12/101) (P = 0.008); the incidence of venous bleeding in PPI + APG group and PPI group was 1. 05% (1/95) and 0.99% (1/101), respectively, and there was no significant difference between them (0.999). The early mortality rate was 0 in both groups within 6 wk after the operation, and the low mortality rate was related to the timely hospitalization and active treatment of all patients with rebleeding. The overall incidence of complications in the PPI + APG group was 12.63% (12/95), which was not significantly different from 13.86% (14/101) in the PPI group (P = 0.800). of abdominal pain in the PPI + APG group was 3.16% (3/95), which was lower than that in the PPI group (11.88%, 12/101) (P = 0.022). However, due to aluminum phosphate gel usage, the incidence of constipation in the PPI + APG group was 9.47% (9/95), which was higher than that in the PPI group (1.98%, 2/101) (P = 0.023), but the health of the patients could be improved by increasing drinking water or oral lactulose. No patients in either group developed spontaneous peritonitis after taking PPI, and none developed hepatic encephalopathy and ectopic embolism within 6 wk of EVHT treatment.

CONCLUSION

PPI combined with APG can significantly reduce the incidence of early rebleeding and postoperative abdominal pain in cirrhotic patients with GVB after taking EVHT.

Risk factors associated with failure of endoscopic combined treatment to prevent varices rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate risk factors associated with gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding after endoscopic combined treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients who had liver cirrhosis and underwent endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding were retrospectively recruited. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and CT examination of portal vein system were performed before endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic obturation for gastric varices and ligation for esophageal varices were performed simultaneously at the first treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five patients were enrolled, and after the first endoscopic treatment, recurrent hemorrhage occurred in 39 patients (23.6%) during 1-year follow-up. Compared to the non-rebleeding group, HVPG was significantly higher (18 mmHg vs.14 mmHg, P = 0.024) and more patients had HVPG exceeding 18 mmHg (51.3% vs.31.0%, P = 0.021) in the rebleeding group. No significant difference was found in other clinical and laboratory data between two groups (P > 0.05 for all). By a logistic regression analysis, high HVPG was the only risk factor associated with failure of endoscopic combined therapy (OR = 1.071, 95%CI, 1.005-1.141, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The poor efficacy of endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding was associated with high HVPG. Therefore, other therapeutic options should be considered for the rebleeding patients with high HVPG.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration and liver stiffness measurement predict the prognosis of patients with gastric varices

BACKGROUND

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) is a treatment option for patients with gastric varices (GVs). This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of portal hypertension estimated by the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), subsequent exacerbation of esophageal varices (EVs), and prognosis of patients who underwent BRTO for GVs.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with GVs treated with BRTO were enrolled in this study, and their HVPG was measured before (pre-HVPG) and on the day after BRTO (post-HVPG). After BRTO, patients were followed-up for a median interval of 24.5 (3-140) months. Clinical factors related to EVs exacerbation and prognosis after BRTO were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Post-HVPG increased compared to pre-HVPG in 21 out of 36 patients (58%), and post-HVPG was overall significantly higher compared to pre-HVPG (P = 0.009). During the observation period, 19 patients (53%) developed EVs exacerbation, and the cumulative EVs exacerbation rates at 1, 3 and 5 years after BRTO were 27%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. Pre-HVPG was not related to EVs exacerbation, although elevation of post-HVPG to ≥ 13 mmHg (P < 0.01) and high level of serum aspartate aminotransferase (P < 0.05) were significant independent risk factors for EVs exacerbation after BRTO. Fourteen patients (38.9%) died during the observation period. An elevated value of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of ≥ 21 kPa was a significant independent risk factor for poor prognosis after BRTO (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

HVPG increases after BRTO. HVPG after BRTO has greater predictive ability for subsequent EVs exacerbation than HVPG before BRTO. LSM is a potential prognostic parameter in patients who undergo BRTO.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided diagnosis and treatment of gastric varices

Gastric varices (GV) represent a common and severe complication in patients with portal hypertension, commonly seen in patients with cirrhosis and severe pancreatic disease. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a safe and efficacious approach that can perform real-time ultrasonic scanning and intervention for the gastrointestinal submucosa, portal vein and its tributaries, and collateral circulations during direct endoscopic observation. Recently, various studies have been published about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided management of GV, mainly including diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic analysis. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the development process and current management of EUS-guided GV procedures.

Ендоскопічне лікування кровотеч із варикозно розширених вен шлунка

Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен стравоходу та шлунка є найнебезпечнішим для життя ускладненням цирозу печінки та портальної гіпертензії. Кровотеча з варикозно розширених вен шлунка часто є серйознішою та може призвести до смерті. Для її зупинки спочатку проводиться ендоскопічне лікування. Зараз міжнародні консенсусні рекомендації щодо лікування кровотечі з варикозу шлунка відрізняються залежно від ендоскопічної класифікації. Варикозне розширення вен шлунка має іншу фізіологію та клінічні характеристики порівняно з варикозним розширенням вен стравоходу. Існує мало інформації про способи гемостазу при кровотечі зі шлункових вариксів. Незважаючи на те, що кілька нещодавніх розробок щодо препаратів і методів поліпшили результати при цій патології, консенсус щодо оптимального лікування не досягнутий. У цій статті розглядаються сучасні можливості ендоскопічного втручання при варикозній кровотечі зі шлунка за літературними даними з бази MedLine.

Interventional radiology followed by endoscopic drainage for pancreatic fluid collections associated with high bleeding risk: Two case reports

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage is an advanced technique used to treat pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, gastric varices and intervening vessels may be associated with a high risk of bleeding and are, therefore, listed as relative contraindications. Herein, we report two patients who underwent interventional embolization before EUS-guided drainage.

CASE SUMMARY

Two 32-year-old males developed symptomatic PFCs after acute pancreatitis and came to our hospital for further treatment. One patient suffered from intermittent abdominal pain and vomiting, and computed tomography (CT) imaging showed an encapsulated cyst 7.93 cm × 6.13 cm in size. The other patient complained of a mass inside the abdomen, which gradually became enlarged. Gastric varices around the ideal puncture site were detected by EUS when we evaluated the possibility of endoscopic drainage in both patients. Interventional embolization was recommended as the first procedure to decrease the risk of bleeding. After that, EUS-guided transluminal drainage was successfully conducted, without vascular rupture. No postoperative complications occurred during hospitalization, and no recurrence was detected at the last follow-up CT scan performed at 1 mo.

CONCLUSION

Interventional embolization is a safe, preoperative procedure that is performed before EUS-guided drainage in PFC patients with gastric varices or at high risk of bleeding.

Efficacy of interventional radiology in the management of portal hypertension: A narrative review

Portal hypertension is associated with numerous adverse effects, including the formation of gastroesophageal varices and a portal vein general circulation shunt. Portal hypertension can lead to portal blood flow into the liver and a subsequent reduction in liver function. Clinical interventions can be hampered by a concurrent reduction in circulating platelets associated with increased splenic activity. Pharmaceutical interventions for the treatment of complications associated with portal hypertension have achieved various degrees of success. However, an effective therapeutic strategy for portal hypertension has not yet been established. A literature search was performed using "PubMed." Database between 1966 and January 2021 using the following keywords: portal hypertension, interventional radiology, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration, transjugular retrograde obliteration of gastric varices, percutaneous transhepatic obliteration, partial splenic embolization, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting. In this narrative review, we summarize the application of interventional radiology in patients with portal hypertension, including techniques for embolization of collateral veins and portal pressure reduction. These up-to-date interventional radiology techniques can be used to treat portal hypertension. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We retrospectively compared the effect of endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) and retrograde transvenous obliteration (RTO) in acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding treated with EVO or RTO at two hospitals were included.

RESULTS

Ninety patients treated with EVO and 86 treated with RTO were analyzed. The mean model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (13.5 vs. 11.7, P = 0.016). The bleeding control rates were high (97.8% vs. 96.5%), and the treatment-related complication rates were low in both EVO and RTO groups (2.2% vs. 3.5%). During the median follow-up of 18.0 months, gastric variceal (GV) and esophageal variceal rebleeding occurred in 34 (19.3%) and 7 (4.0%) patients, respectively. The all-variceal rebleeding rates were comparable between EVO and RTO groups (32.4% vs. 20.8% at 2-year, P = 0.150), while the GV rebleeding rate was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (32.4% vs. 12.8% at 2-year, P = 0.003). On propensity score-matched analysis (71 patients in EVO vs. 71 patients in RTO group), both all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates were significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (all P < 0.05). In Cox regression analysis, EVO (vs. RTO) was the only significant predictor of higher GV rebleeding risk (hazard ratio 3.132, P = 0.005). The mortality rates were similar between two groups (P = 0.597).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EVO and RTO effectively controlled acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding. RTO was superior to EVO in preventing all-variceal and GV rebleeding after treatment, with similar survival outcomes.

Management of varices and variceal hemorrhage in liver cirrhosis: a recent update

Cirrhosis consists of two main stages: compensated (asymptomatic) and decompensated, the latter with a higher mortality. Variceal hemorrhage, together with ascites or encephalopathy, or both, are events that define cirrhosis decompensation and are driven by portal hypertension. The approach and management of patients with compensated cirrhosis has been mostly focused on preventing variceal hemorrhage in those who have high-risk varices on endoscopy. Recent studies suggest a paradigm shift aimed at preventing all decompensating events, not only variceal hemorrhage, in patients with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension identified via noninvasive measures such as liver stiffness and platelet count. In these patients, nonselective beta-blockers have been shown to prevent ascites (the most common decompensating event) and variceal growth. Variceal hemorrhage has a high mortality rate and even though advances in diagnostic approach and standard of care over the past decades have led to a decrease in mortality, it is still high with a 6-week mortality rate of 15-20%. Survival has improved with the preemptive placement of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients at high risk of failing standard therapy. In this review, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology and bases for therapy of portal hypertension and varices, the diagnostic approach and management of compensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension, and the management of acute variceal hemorrhage as well as prevention strategies for variceal hemorrhage recurrence.

Managing gastric varices

Gastric varices (GV) are a type of ectopic varix, which is a natural portosystemic shunt occurring in response to an increase in intrahepatic vascular resistance, mostly commonly from portal hypertension. GV are present in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension. Although oesophageal varices are more common than GV, and oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) happens more often than gastric variceal bleeding (GVB), GVB tends to be more severe, to have higher associated hospital costs, length of stay, higher rebleeding rates and have higher mortality. Mortality rates associated with variceal bleeding range from 6% in EVB to 20%-55% in GVB. Risk factors for GV haemorrhage include location, size, severity of liver failure, presence of variceal red spots, and presence of HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma). This manuscript will review endoscopic and non-endoscopic treatment of GV.

Difference between type 2 gastroesophageal varices and isolated fundic varices in clinical profiles and portosystemic collaterals

BACKGROUND

There is significant heterogeneity between gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices (IGV1). The data on the difference between GOV2 and IGV1 are limited.

AIM

To determine the etiology, clinical profiles, endoscopic findings, imaging signs, portosystemic collaterals in patients with GOV2 and IGV1.

METHODS

Medical records of 252 patients with gastric fundal varices were retrospectively collected, and computed tomography images were analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences in routine blood examination, Child–Pugh classification and MELD scores were found between GOV2 and IGV1. The incidence of peptic ulcers in patients with IGV1 (26.55%) was higher than that of GOV2 (11.01%), while portal hypertensive gastropathy was more commonly found in patients with GOV2 (22.02%) than in those with IGV1 (3.54%). Typical radiological signs of cirrhotic liver were more commonly observed in patients with GOV2 than in those with IGV1. In patients with GOV2, the main afferent vessels were via the left gastric vein (LGV) (97.94%) and short gastric vein (SGV) (39.18%). In patients with IGV1, the main afferent vessels were via the LGV (75.61%), SGV (63.41%) and posterior gastric vein (PGV) (43.90%). In IGV1 patients with pancreatic diseases, spleno-gastromental-superior mesenteric shunt (48.15%) was a major collateral vessel. In patients with fundic varices, the sizes of gastric/esophageal varices were positively correlated with afferent vessels (LGVs and PGVs) and efferent vessels (gastrorenal shunts). The size of the esophageal varices was negatively correlated with gastrorenal shunts in GOV2 patients.

CONCLUSION

Significant heterogeneity in the etiology and vascular changes between GOV2 and IGV1 is useful in making therapeutic decisions.

Update on the management of gastric varices

Gastro-oesophageal varices are the major clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although less frequent than oesophageal varices (EV), bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is generally more severe and associated with higher mortality and a greater risk to rebleed. According to Sarin's classification, GVs are categorized into four types based on their location within the stomach and relationship with EV. Currently, treatment options for the management of GV include beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligation, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, EUS-guided coil/cyanoacrylate injection, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration. The best treatment strategy of GV remains controversial because of the heterogeneity of GV, lack of high-quality data and suboptimal trial design of the studies available. The proper treatment algorithm may require adequate endoscopic and imaging evaluation by a multidisciplinary team with multiple treatment options available. This review describes the hemodynamic features of GV, pharmacological, endoscopic and interventional radiological treatment options for GV.

Variceal Bleeding: Beyond Banding

Despite advances in the management of complications of portal hypertension, variceal bleeding continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While endoscopic variceal band ligation remains first line therapy for treating bleeding and high-risk non-bleeding esophageal varices, alternate therapies have been explored, particularly in cases of refractory bleeding. The therapies being explored include stent placement, hemostatic powder use, over-the-scope clips and others. For gastric variceal bleeding, endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies have recently emerged as promising interventions for hemostasis. The aim of this article is to highlight these alternative therapies and their potential role in the management of gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding.

Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Balloon-Occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration for Prevention of Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal treatment for gastric varices (GVs) is a topic that remains open for study. This study compared the efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) to prevent rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and GVs after primary hemostasis.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Patients with cirrhosis and history of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices type 2 or isolated gastric varices type 1 were randomized to cyanoacrylate injection (n = 32) or BRTO treatment (n = 32). Primary outcomes were gastric variceal rebleeding or all-cause rebleeding. Patient characteristics were well balanced between two groups. Mean follow-up time was 27.1 ± 12.0 months in a cyanoacrylate injection group and 27.6 ± 14.3 months in a BRTO group. Probability of gastric variceal rebleeding was higher in the cyanoacrylate injection group than in the BRTO group (P = 0.024). Probability of remaining free of all-cause rebleeding at 1 and 2 years for cyanoacrylate injection versus BRTO was 77% versus 96.3% and 65.2% versus 92.6% (P = 0.004). Survival rates, frequency of complications, and worsening of esophageal varices were similar in both groups. BRTO resulted in fewer hospitalizations, inpatient stays, and lower medical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

BRTO is more effective than cyanoacrylate injection in preventing rebleeding from GVs, with similar frequencies of complications and mortalities.

Unpacking the challenge of gastric varices: A review on indication, timing and modality of therapy

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from oesophageal or gastric varices is an important medical condition in patients with portal hypertension. Despite the emergence of a number of novel endoscopic and radiologic therapies for oesophagogastric varices, controversy exists regarding the indication, timing and modality of therapy. The aim of this review is to provide a concise and practical evidence-based overview of these issues.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices: Expert Review

Management of bleeding gastric varices (GV) presents a unique challenge for patients with portal hypertension. Despite over thirty years of diagnostic and treatment advances standardized practices for bleeding GV are lacking and unsupported by adequate evidence. There are no definitive natural history studies to help with risk assessment or prospective clinical trials to guide clinical decision making. Available literature on the natural history and management of gastric varices consists of case series, restricted cohort studies, and a few small randomized trials, all of which have significant selection biases. This review summarizes the available data and recommendations based on expert opinion on how best to diagnose and manage bleeding from gastric varices. Table 1 summarizes our recommendations.

Primary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding: endoscopic obturation, radiologic intervention, or observation?

BACKGROUND

No single effective method has yet been established for the primary prophylaxis of bleeding from gastric varices (GV).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed liver cirrhosis patients with GV who had undergone either endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) as prophylactic treatments, comparing them with those who were observed without any procedural intervention. The endpoints were GV bleeding rate and complete eradication rate.

RESULTS

72 patients in EVO, 41 patients in BRTO, and 97 patients in the clinical observation groups were enrolled. No difference was observed in baseline characteristics. As the primary endpoint, 14 (19.4%) patients in the EVO group and 3 (7.3%) in the BRTO group bled from GV after prophylactic treatment, and 34 (35.1%) patients bled in the observation group during the median follow-up of 35 months (p = 0.001). Patients who received EVO or BRTO developed less bleeding from GV than those who received observation only, with no difference between EVO and BRTO (EVO vs. observation, p = 0.038; BRTO vs. observation, p = 0.001; EVO vs. BRTO, p = 0.089). As secondary endpoints, GV disappeared completely in 33 patients (45.8%) in the EVO group and 31 patients (75.6%) in the BRTO group (p = 0.003). By multivariate analysis, complete eradication of GV was the sole determinant for predicting GV bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EVO and BRTO are effective and safe primary prophylactic treatments for preventing bleeding from GV. In particular, BRTO is better than EVO in complete eradication of GV.

The Promise of Percutaneous Transhepatic Variceal Embolization for Both Gastroesophageal and Ectopic Varices—An Australian Case Series

Purpose This article aims to report Australian experience of percutaneous transhepatic embolization of gastroesophageal and ectopic varices.

Method Eight consecutive patients (mean age 61.8 years, 7 men) who had undergone percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) for variceal bleeding between October 2013 and February 2020 were analyzed. All patients were admitted from the emergency department. The following embolic materials were used—coils, Onyx 18 (Medtronic), and n-butyl cyanoacrylate plus lipiodol.

Results Post-PTVE, all eight patients demonstrated clinical and radiological improvement in the immediate postprocedure period (< 24 hours). Patients were followed for a mean of 44 ± 24 days postprocedure. Two patients were lost to follow-up. The postprocedure complications included rebleeding (n = 1), hepatic encephalopathy (n = 1), hemoperitoneum (n = 1), ileus (n = 1), and abdominal pain (n = 3).

Conclusion PTVE is an effective treatment option for patients with uncontrolled variceal bleeding (ectopic as well as gastroesophageal) especially when the traditional therapies such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, endoscopic variceal ligation, and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration are contraindicated or ineffective.

Proximal Splenorenal Shunt Surgery for Bleeding Gastric Varices in Non-Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension

Background

The optimal management of gastric variceal bleeding in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) is debatable due to the lack of data from large randomized controlled trials. Here we present our experience on proximal splenorenal shunt (PSRS) surgery in NCPH patients with bleeding gastric varices.

Methods

Over a five-year period, a total of 25 PSRS surgeries were performed and data was collected prospectively. Nineteen extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) and six non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF) patients with bleeding fundic or isolated gastric varices and normal liver function were included. The collected data was analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Of the 25 patients who underwent PSRS five were lost to follow-up. Twenty patients (80%) were followed up for a median of 3.4 (1-5) years. Gastric variceal regression was noted in all 20 patients with the disappearance of varices in eight patients. On follow-up, shunt thrombosis was noted in four (20%) patients of whom, two had rebleeding between six months and three years after shunt surgery.

Conclusion

PSRS was effective in controlling gastric variceal hemorrhage in 92% (23 of 25) of patients with preserved liver function.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Gastric Varices

Hemorrhage, resulting from gastric varies, can be challenging to treat, given the various precipitating etiologies. A wide variety of treatment options exist for managing the diverse range of the underlying disease processes. While cirrhosis is the most common cause for gastric variceal bleeding, occlusion of the portal or splenic vein in noncirrhotic states results in a markedly different treatment paradigm. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Synchronous hybrid procedure combining interventional radiology and endoscopy for esophagogastric varices with large gastro-renal shunt

Successful treatment of esophagogastric varices (EGV) with giant portal-systemic shunt is challenging. To explore the feasibility and safety of a novel hybrid procedure involving interventional radiology and endoscopy in the same sitting.Three cases clinically diagnosed to have decompensated cirrhosis and EGV with giant gastrorenal shunt (GRS) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) were included. The hybrid procedures included: indirect portography, hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement, HVPG-based partial splenic embolization (PSE), retrospective GRS balloon occlusion, endoscopic histoacryl injection (EHI), balloon catheter radiography and withdrawal. All the procedures were done in the same operation room. Main outcomes measurements included operation time, complications, and re-bleeding events.Hybrid interventions were performed successfully in 3 cases with a mean operation time of 63.3 minutes without any major intra- and post-operation complications. No rebleeding occurred at 6-month follow-up.Synchronous hybrid intervention combining radiology and endoscopy is feasible and safe for patients with EGV and giant GRS, preliminary study with limited cases deserves further exploration.

Management Options for Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage

Importance

Varices are one of the main clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Gastric varices are less common than esophageal varices but are often associated with poorer prognosis, mainly because of their higher propensity to bleed.

Observations

Currently, treatments used to control and manage gastric variceal bleeding include β-blockers, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, endoscopic variceal obturation, shunt surgery, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO), and modified BRTO. In the past few decades, Western (United States and Europe) interventional radiologists have preferred transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts that aim to decompress the liver and reduce portal pressure. Conversely, Eastern radiologists (Japan and South Korea) have preferred BRTO that directly targets the gastric varices. Over the past 20 years, BRTO has evolved and procedure-related risks have decreased. Owing to its safety and efficiency in treating gastric varices, BRTO is now starting to gain popularity among Western interventional radiologists. In this review, we present a comprehensive literature review of current and emerging management options, including BRTO and modified BRTO, for the treatment of gastric varices in the setting of cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Conclusions and Relevance

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration has emerged as a safe and effective alternative treatment option for gastric variceal hemorrhage. A proper training, evidence-based consensus and guideline, thorough preprocedural and postprocedural evaluation, and a multidisciplinary team approach with BRTO and modified BRTO are strongly recommended to ensure best patient care.

Comparison of the Effects of TIPS versus BRTO on Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a threat to patients with gastric varices (GVs). Previous studies have concluded that both transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are effective treatments for patients with GV. We aimed to compare the efficiency and outcomes of these two procedures in GV patients through meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched using the keywords: GV, bleeding, TIPS, and BRTO to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The overall survival (OS) rate, imminent haemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, technical success rate, procedure complication rate (hepatic encephalopathy and aggravated ascites), and Child-Pugh score were evaluated. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing TIPS and BRTO for GV due to portal hypertension were included in our meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% CIs using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between TIPS and BRTO in the OS rate (RR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, BRTO brought more benefits to patients, with a higher OS rate and lower rebleeding rate. BRTO is a feasible method for GVB.

Gastric variceal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are no well-established guidelines for the management of gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopic management of acute gastric variceal bleeding has been premised on the injection of sclerosants and synthetic glue. However, these therapies are associated with various complications including systemic embolization and recurrent bleeding. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions including coil injection have emerged as promising modalities with high technical and clinical success rates and low rates of recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review we discuss the classification, natural history, prognosis, and treatment options of gastric variceal. Discussion of treatment is further subdivided into primary and secondary prophylaxis and the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding with a focus on emerging endoscopic interventions.

SUMMARY

Cyanoacrylate injection may have a role in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal. Endoscopic band ligation should be considered for GOV1. EUS-guided injection of synthetic glues like cyanoacrylate is superior to direct injection. However, EUS-guided coil injections with or without cyanoacrylate should be considered first-line endoscopic treatment in all bleeding gastric variceal except for GOV1. Balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) remain important interventional radiologic therapeutic options as primary therapy in centers without EUS expertise or as salvage therapy.

Addition of Carvedilol to Gastric Variceal Obturation Does Not Decrease Recurrence of Gastric Variceal Bleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) frequently recurs after hemostasis by gastric variceal obturation (GVO). We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of carvedilol plus GVO in secondary prophylaxis of GVB.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 121 patients with cirrhosis (ages 20-80 years) with GVB proven by endoscopy within 24 hours of bleeding and stable hemodynamics for at least 3 days after initial GVO. Patients were randomly assigned into a group that underwent repeated GVO (n = 61) or a group received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (n = 60). Recurrent GVB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), adverse events, and survival were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

GVB recurred in 21 patients (34%) in the group that received repeated GVO and 14 patients (23%) in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (P = .18). Ascites (relative risk [RR], 2.69; 95% CI, 1.33-5.48; P = .006) and hepatoma (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.03-4.28; P = .04) were associated with recurrent GVB. Twenty-nine patients (48%) in the group that received repeated GVO and 17 patients (28%) in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol had recurrent UGIB (P = .03). Carvedilol (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.80; P = .007) was associated with reduced risk of UGIB recurrence. Ascites (RR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.59-5.73; P = .001) and hepatoma (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.10-3.88; P = .02) were associated with recurrent UGIB. A higher proportion of patients in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (53%) had adverse events than the group that received repeated GVO (15%) (P < .001). Mean survival times were 21 ± 18 months in the group that received repeated GVO vs 25 ± 20 months in the group that received repeated GVO plus carvedilol (P = .30).

CONCLUSION

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that addition of carvedilol to GVO did not decrease recurrence of GVB in patients with cirrhosis but was associated with decreased recurrence of UGIB. However, carvedilol plus GVO produced significantly more adverse events. Mean survival times did not differ significantly between groups. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02504723.

Endoscopic Therapy and Radiologic Intervention of Acute Gastroesophageal Variceal Bleeding

Acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Endoscopic therapy and radiologic intervention for gastroesophageal bleeding have rapidly developed in the recent decades. Endoscopic treatment is initially performed to stop variceal hemorrhage. For the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is considered the endoscopic treatment of choice. In cases of gastric variceal hemorrhage, the type of gastric varices (GVs) is important in deciding the strategy of endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) is recommended for fundal variceal bleeding. For the management of gastroesophageal varix type 1 bleeding, both EVO and EVL are available treatment options; however, EVO is preferred over EVL. If endoscopic management fails to control variceal hemorrhage, radiologic interventional modalities could be considered. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is a good option for rescue treatment in refractory variceal bleeding. In cases of refractory hemorrhage of GVs in patients with a gastrorenal shunt, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration could be considered as a salvage treatment.

An Unusual Presentation of Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a commonly encountered condition that can potentially be life-threatening. Endoscopy is the diagnostic modality of choice, but it is important to recognize it's shortcomings. We introduce a 61-year-old female who presented with hematemesis and syncope. She had a history of recurrent episodes of hematemesis and hospitalizations for the preceding 18 months, for which multiple endoscopies had been performed but had failed to demonstrate a source. A repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed at our facility was unremarkable. A CT scan demonstrated a lobulated mass-like filling defect in the gastric cardia consistent with solitary varix with an abnormal fold pattern. An upper GI follow-through series was performed to better characterize this varix. The patient subsequently underwent balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration with successful control of the source of bleeding. It is important to keep in mind that EGD while being the gold standard for the diagnosis of varices, has its limitations, and should be augmented with the use of non-traditional diagnostic modalities such as CT scans or radionuclide imaging.

Laparoscopic Total Devascularization of the Upper Stomach and Splenectomy (Hassab's Procedure) Under Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging: Initial Experience

The use of surgical treatment for refractory isolated gastric varices has decreased owing to the development of endoscopic and radiologic procedures, although surgeries are sometimes required as the final method. A 75-year-old Japanese woman was diagnosed with solitary gastric varices. Initially, intraoperative splenic artery embolization was performed using the balloon transcatheter technique under general anesthesia. Laparoscopic splenectomy was performed safely owing to preoperative splenic artery embolization. Intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography was performed following the injection of 5 mL of ICG; the remnant stomach was observed using laparoscopic equipment with an ICG imaging system, and blood flow from the remnant gastric artery was confirmed. The blood did not pool or wash out immediately, which confirmed successful devascularization of the stomach. The total operative time was 269 minutes, and the intraoperative blood loss was 500 mL. The patient's postoperative course was good, and at 21 days after the last operation, she was discharged from our hospital in remission. Real-time fluorescence angiography with ICG is a reliable and objective technique of assessing blood flow of the stomach. Accurate, extensive devascularization in the lower esophagus and upper stomach was performed using Hassab's procedure in combination with ICG imaging.

Prognosis of patients with gastric variceal bleeding after endoscopic variceal obturation according to the type of varices

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study was performed to evaluate the treatment efficacy of endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) in patients with gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) according to the type of varices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who were treated with EVO for bleeding from gastric varices (GVs) were included. Patients with a previous history of endoscopic treatment for GVB and those with accompanying portal vein invasion by hepatocellular carcinoma or other malignancy were excluded.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients with GVB were included. Mean age was 59.4±12.4 years and 72 (79.1%) patients were men. The types of varices were gastroesophageal varices (GOV) type 1 (GOV1), GOV2, and isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1) in 30 (33.3%), 35 (38.5%), and 26 (28.6%) patients, respectively. Hemostasis and GV obliteration were achieved in 88 (96.7%) and 81 (89.0%) patients, respectively. Among 81 patients with GV obliteration, GV recurred in 26 (32.1%) patients. The GV recurrence rate was significantly lower in patients with GOV1 than in those with GOV2 (P=0.007), while it was comparable between patients with GOV1 and IGV1 (P=0.111) and between patients with GOV2 and IGV1 (P=0.278). Variceal rebleeding occurred in 11 (13.6%) patients. GVB recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients with GOV2 than in those with GOV1 (P=0.034) and IGV1 (P=0.018), while it was comparable between patients with GOV1 and IGV1 (P=0.623). Mortality rate was comparable among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EVO was very effective in patients with GVB. GV recurrence and GV rebleeding were significantly lower in patients with GOV1 than in those with GOV2.

Update on the management of gastrointestinal varices

Cirrhosis of liver is a major problem in the western world. Portal hypertension is a complication of cirrhosis and can lead to a myriad of pathology of which include the development of porto-systemic collaterals. Gastrointestinal varices are dilated submucosal veins, which often develop at sites near the formation of gastroesophageal collateral circulation. The incidence of varices is on the rise due to alcohol and obesity. The most significant complication of portal hypertension is life-threatening bleeding from gastrointestinal varices, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In addition, this can cause a significant burden on the health care facility. Gastrointestinal varices can happen in esophagus, stomach or ectopic varices. There has been considerable progress made in the understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology and etiology of portal hypertension. Despite the development of endoscopic and medical treatments, early mortality due to variceal bleeding remains high due to significant illness of the patient. Recurrent variceal bleed is common and in some cases, there is refractory variceal bleed. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of gastrointestinal varices with an emphasis on endoscopic interventions, strategies to handle refractory variceal bleed and newer endoscopic treatment modalities. Early treatment and improved endoscopic techniques can help in improving morbidity and mortality.

Evolution of Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration Techniques

Gastric variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a poorer prognosis compared with esophageal variceal hemorrhage. The presence of an infradiaphragmatic portosystemic shunt, often a gastrorenal shunt, allows for treatment with retrograde transvenous obliteration (RTO). RTO is an evolving treatment strategy, which includes balloon-assisted RTO, plug-assisted RTO, and coil-assisted RTO, for both gastric variceal hemorrhage and hepatic encephalopathy. RTO techniques are less invasive than transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation, with the benefit of improved hepatic function, but at the expense of increased portal pressure. This article discusses the techniques of RTO, including patient eligibility, as well as technical and clinical outcomes, including adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices with lauromacrogol foam sclerotherapy: initial experience

PURPOSE

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) is a widely-accepted treatment for gastric varices (GVs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRTO with lauromacrogol foam sclerotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2014 and June 2015, 32 patients were treated with lauromacrogol foam. Lauromacrogol foam was made using a combination of agents, with a 2:1:1 ratio of room air: lauromacrogol: contrast media. Patients were followed up using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and endoscopy.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 31 of 32 patients (96.9%). Portal vein thrombosis occurred in two patients and resolved spontaneously. No other major complications were observed. The overall mean dose of lauromacrogol used was 12.4 mL (range, 8-20 mL). Complete obliteration of GVs was confirmed in all 31 patients (100%) on follow-up CT. Seven of the 31 patients (22.6%) experienced worsening of esophageal varices. Rupture of esophageal varices occurred in three patients and was treated successfully with band ligation. Five patients (16.1%) experienced worsening of ascites and responded well to diuretic therapy.

CONCLUSION

BRTO utilizing lauromacrogol foam appears to be a safe and useful treatment option in patients with GVs in the short term.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil or glue injection in post-cyanoacrylate gastric variceal re-bleed

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

N-butyl-cyanoacrylate injection is recommended in bleeding/recently bled gastric varices. However, cyanoacrylate injection is associated with re-bleed in 25% to 50% of patients. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil application is an emerging treatment modality for bleeding gastric varices. The aim of this study was to compare EUS-guided coil application combined with or without cyanoacrylate glue injection to injection alone in post-glue gastric variceal re-bleed.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Thirty patients who re-bled after cyanoacrylate injection and who had EUS-guided coil application to gastric varices were included. The comparison was done with data of 51 patients who had only repeat cyanoacrylate injection. Both groups had a follow up for 12 months. EUS-guided coil application was done under endosonographic guidance. A single coil was placed in 7, two coils in each of 13 patients, three in 5, four in 3, five in one, and 6 coils in one patient. In addition, cyanoacrylate glue injection was given in 15 patients. Eight patients had repeat EUS-guided coil application 1 month later. Re-bleed and mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

Coilng: Six out of 30 (20%) patients re-bled during follow up of 9 to 365 days. Three out of 30 (10%) died. One patient died 9 days after the procedure due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, one died 4 months after the procedure due to a re-bleed and one 5 months after the procedure due to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Glue only: 26/51 (51%) re-bled during follow up of 45 to 365 days. EUS-guided coil application resulted in significantly less re-bleed than glue-only (Kaplan-Meir survival analysis with log-rank test, z = 5.4, p < 0.001). Two out of 51 (4%) died 59 and 186 days after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided coil application with/without cyanoacrylate injection for the obliteration of gastric varices is effective for post-cyanoacrylate gastric variceal re-bleed.

Modified Balloon-Occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (BRTO) Techniques for the Treatment of Gastric Varices: Vascular Plug-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (PARTO)/Coil-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (CARTO)/Balloon-Occluded Antegrade Transvenous Obliteration (BATO)

Gastric varices in the setting of portal hypertension occur less frequently than esophageal varices but occur at lower portal pressures and are associated with more massive bleeding events and higher mortality rate. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) of gastric varices has been well documented as an effective therapy for portal hypertensive gastric varices. However, BRTO requires lengthy, higher-level post-procedural monitoring and can have complications related to balloon rupture and adverse effects of sclerosing agents. Several modified BRTO techniques have been developed including vascular plug-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration, coil-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration, and balloon-occluded antegrade transvenous obliteration. This article provides an overview of various modified BRTO techniques.

Biocompatible alkyl cyanoacrylates and their derivatives as bio-adhesives

Cyanoacrylate adhesives and their homologues have elicited interest over the past few decades owing to their applications in the biomedical sector, extending from tissue adhesives to scaffolds to implants to dental material and adhesives, because of their inherent biocompatibility and ability to polymerize solely with moisture, thanks to which they adhere to any substrate containing moisture such as the skin.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.