Self-expanding metal stents versus TIPS in treatment of refractory bleeding esophageal varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Esophageal Stent in Acute Refractory Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Background: Acute esophageal variceal bleeding accounts for up to 70% of upper-gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. About 10-20% of patients with acute variceal bleeding have refractory bleeding that is not controlled by medical or endoscopic therapy, and this condition can be life-threatening. Balloon tamponade is a long-standing therapy which is only effective temporarily and has several complications, while transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and liver transplantation may not be readily available at some centers. The use of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) in refractory esophageal variceal bleeding has been studied for effectiveness and adverse events and has been recommended for use as a bridge to a more definitive treatment. Aim: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of SEMSs in managing refractory variceal bleeding. Methods: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases was performed from inception to October 2022 using the following terms: "esophageal stent", "self-expandable metal stents", "endoscopic hemostasis", "refractory esophageal varices", and "esophageal variceal bleeding". Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) patients' age older than 18 and (2) a study (or case series) that has at least 10 patients in the study. Exclusion criteria included (1) non-English publications, (2) in case of overlapping cohorts, data from the most recent and/or most appropriate comprehensive report were collected. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the meta package in R statistical software(version 4.2.2). Results: Twelve studies involving 225 patients with 228 stents were included in the analyses. The mean age and/or median age ranged from 49.4 to 69 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 4.4 to 1. The median follow-up period was 42 days. The mean SEMS dwell time was 9.4 days. The most common cause of acute refractory variceal bleeding in chronic liver disease patients included alcohol use followed by viral hepatitis. The pooled rate of immediate bleeding control was 91% (95% CI 82-95%, I2 = 0). The pooled rate of rebleeding was 17% (95% CI 8-32%, I2 = 69). The pooled rate of stent ulceration was 7% (95% CI 3-13%, I2 = 0), and the pooled rate of stent migration was 18% (95% CI 9-32%, I2 = 38). The pooled rate of all-cause mortality was 38% (95% CI 30-47%, I2 = 34). Conclusions: SEMSs should be primarily considered as salvage therapy when endoscopic band ligation and sclerotherapy fail and can be used as a bridge to emergent TIPS or definitive therapy, such as liver transplantation.

Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting

Endoscopic stenting is an area of endoscopy that has witnessed noteworthy advancements over the last decade, resulting in evolving clinical practices among gastroenterologists around the world. Indications for endoscopic stenting have progressively expanded, becoming a frequent part of the management algorithm for various benign and malignant conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to rectum. In addition to expanded indications, continuous technological enhancements and development of novel endoscopic stents have resulted in an increased success of these approaches and, in some cases, allowed new applications. This review aimed to summarize best practices in esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colonic stenting.

Emergent rescue transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt within 8 h improves survival in patients with refractory variceal bleed

BACKGROUND

Transjugular-intrahepatic portosystemic-shunt (TIPS) and SX-Ella stent Danis (DE stent) are available rescue therapies for refractory variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Any delay in appropriate therapy is associated with high mortality. Determining the best timing for rescue TIPS is crucial and largely unknown.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with refractory variceal bleed (n = 121) who underwent rescue TIPS within 24-h (n = 66) were included. Their early rebleed (upto 42 days) rate, 6-week and 1-year survival were compared with matched patients who underwent rescue DE stent (n = 55). Outcomes based on timing of TIPS (within 8-h/8-24 h) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients who received rescue DE stent were sicker with higher MELD score (27.6 ± 8.3 vs. 22.3 ± 7.9; p = 0.001), active bleeding at endoscopy (54.5% vs. 34.8%; p = 0.03) compared to TIPS-group. After propensity score matching, adjusting for MELD-Na score and non-bleed complications, DE patients (n = 34) had higher mortality at 6-week (17/34; 50%) and 1-year (29/34; 85.3%) compared to TIPS-group (20.6% and 38.2%, respectively; both p < 0.02), with higher rebleeding rate (10/34; 29.4% vs. 1/34; 2.9%, p = 0.003). Rescue TIPS placed within 8-h compared with 8-24 h had lower 6-week (48.6% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.003) and 1-year mortality (62.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.001) despite comparable rebleed rates (2/31; 6.5% vs. 2/35;5.7%; p = 0.90). Post-TIPS Portal pressure gradient at 6-weeks and 1-year was comparable between survivors and non-survivors. Active bleeding at endoscopy [HR = 11.8; 95% CI 2.96-47.53], presence of AKI [HR = 5.8; 95% CI 1.92-17.41], MELD-Na > 24 [HR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.0-1.17], mean arterial pressure > 64.5 mmHg [HR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.75-0.92] independently predicted 6-week mortality in rescue TIPS-group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue TIPS placement preferably within 8-h of refractory variceal bleed improves short- and long-term survival. It provides better outcome than DE stent for control of bleeding and prevention of rebleeding, even in patients with high MELD-Na score.

Efficacy of endoscopic therapy and long-term outcomes of upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from malignancies is associated with a poor outcome. Only a small number of studies on gastrointestinal tumor bleeding have been published so far, focusing mainly on bleeding from gastric cancer. Since the information on patients with UGIB from esophageal cancer appears insufficient, this study aimed to present clinical and endoscopic findings, treatment options as well as clinical outcomes such as rebleeding and survival of those patients.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included all patients admitted with UGIB from esophageal cancer at our university hospital during a 10-year period.

RESULTS

45 patients were analyzed of whom 26 (57.8%) already had cancer stage IV at index bleeding. 22 (48.9%) patients presented with hemodynamic instability and 30 (66.7%) patients received blood transfusions. Active bleeding was present in 24 (53.3%) patients, of whom 20 (83.3%) received endoscopic therapy. Successful hemostasis was achieved in 18 (90%) of 20 patients with Argon plasma coagulation used most frequently (52.4%). Early and delayed rebleeding occurred in 5 (12.5%) and 11 (27.5%) of all inoperable patients, respectively. Intake of anticoagulation or anti-platelet drugs were risk factors for delayed rebleeding and the median overall survival after index bleeding was 1.2 months.

CONCLUSION

UGIB from esophageal cancer occurred most frequently in advanced tumor stages and was associated with significant blood loss. Even though initial endoscopic therapy was effective, rebleeding occurred in a significant number of patients. Those taking anticoagulants or anti-platelet drugs should be closely monitored for rebleeding. The overall survival after index bleeding was poor.

Pipeline Esophagogastric Varices Secondary to Extrahepatic Portal Vein Obstruction Treated Endoscopically with the Assistance of Transileocolic Obliteration

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophagogastric varices (EGV) was attempted for a 29-year-old man with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. However, pipeline varices characterized by a large blood flow volume were present, and the sclerosant did not accumulate sufficiently in them. Transileocolic obliteration (TIO) using coils was performed, but some EGVs and palisading veins remained. Thus, EIS was performed once again immediately after TIO. Since a reduction in the intravariceal blood flow was achieved by preceding TIO, effective injection of sclerosant into the vessels was possible. For pipeline varices difficult to treat endoscopically, combination therapy with TIO may be effective.

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.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

MALIGNANT DISEASE

1: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

BENIGN DISEASE

5: ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.