Adjuvant sclerotherapy after ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices: a prospective, randomized long-term study

Balloon-occluded Esophageal Varices Obliteration Versus Ligation for the Management of F2 Esophageal Varices: A Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM

To compare balloon-occluded esophageal varices obliteration (BEVO) with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of cirrhotic patients with type F2 esophageal varices (F2-EVs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 157 patients with F2-EVs were randomly assigned to either BEVO (n=79) or EVL (n=78) group in the prospective study between July 2021 and December 2021. Primary outcomes included recurrence and eradication rates. Secondary outcomes included rebleeding rate, and procedural complications.

RESULTS

The recurrence rate of EVs was notably lower in the BEVO group than in the EVL group (3.80% vs. 21.79%; P =0.001). The rate of complete eradication in the BEVO group was significantly higher than that of the EVL group (96.20% vs. 74.36%; P <0.001). The incidence of rebleeding in the BEVO group was markedly lower than that of the EVL group (7.59% vs. 20.51%; P =0.02). There was a higher incidence of transient dysphagia in the EVL group than in the BEVO group (10.26% vs. 1.27%; P =0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

BEVO exerted an effective treatment option for F2-EVs.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Sclerotherapy vs Ligation in the Long-Term Management of Medium Esophageal Varices: A Randomized Trial

Compared with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy (CAES) improves efficacy in the treatment of small esophageal varices (EVs) but has not been evaluated in the management of medium EVs. The aim of this study was to compare CAES with EVL in the long-term management of patients exhibiting cirrhosis with medium EVs and a history of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB), with respect to variceal eradication and recurrence, adverse events, rebleeding, and survival.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using 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. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

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.

Impact of variceal eradication on rebleeding and prognosis in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy has been widely applied to prevent variceal rebleeding, but data addressing the effect of endoscopic variceal eradication (VE) are lacking. We aimed to clarify the clinical impact of VE and reveal the long-term incidence and mortality of gastrointestinal rebleeding.

METHODS

This prospective study included 228 cirrhotic patients who underwent secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding and achieved VE through a systematic procedure we proposed as endoscopic sequential therapy (EST). Rebleeding rates before and after VE were compared and cumulative incidence of rebleeding and mortality were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A logistic regression model and P for trend were used to investigate the optimal time limit for VE.

RESULTS

During a median (interquartile range) follow-up duration of 33.0 (23.0-48.75) months, rebleeding was identified in 28 patients (12.3%) after VE and in 27 patients (11.8%) during endoscopic sessions. The cumulative incidence of rebleeding before and after VE was 8.4% and 1.8% at 6 months, and 14.9% and 4.0% at 1 year respectively (P<0.001). The long-term incidence of all-cause/variceal rebleeding following VE was 10.4%/9.1%, and 31.5%/23.5% at 2 and 5 years respectively. Eleven patients (4.8%) died and the 5-year mortality was 9.3%. VE achieved within 6 months was associated with fewer rebleeding events compared to VE achieved after 6 months (5.5% vs. 20.0%, P=0.002), while logistic regression revealed an overall increasing trend in the odds ratio of rebleeding (vs. patients with VE time ≤6 months) for patients with 6< VE time ≤12 months and VE time >12 months (P for trend <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

VE further reduces rebleeding based on routine endoscopic prophylaxis and improves long-term prognosis. VE within 6 months seems to be the optimal timing and should therefore be advocated.

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.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Effect of intravariceal sclerotherapy combined with esophageal mucosal sclerotherapy using small-volume sclerosant for cirrhotic patients with high variceal pressure

AIM: To explore the effect of intravariceal-mucosal sclerotherapy using small dose of sclerosant on the recurrence of esophageal varices.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 38 cirrhotic patients with previous variceal bleeding and high variceal pressure (> 15.2 mmHg) to receive endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and combined intravariceal and esophageal mucosal sclerotherapy (combined group) using small-volume sclerosant. The end-points of the study were rebleeding and recurrence of esophageal varices.

RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 16 mo, varices recurred in 1 patient in the combined group as compared with 7 patients in the EVL group (P = 0.045). Rebleeding occurred in 3 patients in the EVL group as compared with 1 patient in the combined group (P = 0.687). No patient died in the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION: Intravariceal-mucosal sclerotherapy using small dose of sclerosant is more effective than EVL in decreasing the incidence of variceal recurrence for cirrhotic patients.

Controlled trial of ligation plus vasoconstrictor versus proton pump inhibitor in the control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy combined with vasoconstrictor was generally recommended to treat acute variceal bleeding. However, up to 30% of patients may still encounter treatment failure.

OBJECTIVES

This trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients presenting with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were rescued by emergency EVL. Soon after arresting of bleeding varices, eligible subjects were randomized to two groups. Vasoconstrictor group received either somatostatin or terlipressin infusion. PPI group received either omeprazole or pantoprazole. End points were initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in vasoconstrictor group and 58 patients in PPI group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 98% in vasoconstrictor group and 100% in PPI group (P = 1.0). Very early rebleeding within 48-120 h occurred in one patient (2%) in vasoconstrictor group and one patient (2%) in the PPI group (P = 1.0). Treatment failure was 4% in vasoconstrictor group and 2% in PPI group (P = 0.95). Adverse events occurred in 33 patients (55%) in vasoconstrictor group and three patients (6%) in PPI group (P < 0.001). Two patients in vasoconstrictor group and one patient in PPI group encountered esophageal ulcer bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful control of acute variceal bleeding by EVL, adjuvant therapy with PPI infusion was similar to combination with vasoconstrictor infusion in terms of initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and associated with fewer adverse events.

Endoscopic management of portal hypertension

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension worldwide, with the development of bleeding gastroesophageal varices being one of the most life-threatening consequences. Endoscopy plays an indispensible role in the diagnosis, staging, and prophylactic or active management of varices. With the expected future refinements in endoscopic technology, capsule endoscopy may one day replace traditional gastroscopy as a diagnostic modality, whereas endoscopic ultrasound may more precisely guide interventional therapy for gastric varices.

Does sclerotherapy of remnant little oesophageal varices after endoscopic ligation have impact on the reduction of recurrent varices? Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is superior to endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) of oesophageal varices, however, EBL is associated with a higher rate of variceal recurrences.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the reduction of recurrent varices can be achieved by additional sclerotherapy of remnant little varices after ligation.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with liver cirrhosis who had previously bled from oesophageal varices were examined. Endoscopic therapy was performed in order to prevent recurrent variceal bleeding. I group: in 23 patients ligation of oesophageal varices with multi band ligation device was applied (EBL group). II group: in 25 patients sclerotherapy using polydocanol or absolute alcohol was applied after reducing the size of varices using ligation (EBL and EIS group).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the examined groups of patients in relation to the number of sessions for variceal eradication, recurrence of variceal bleeding, deterioration of portal gastropathy and mortality in the observed period from 18.8 +/- 18.6 months (EBL group) and 22.2 +/- 26.2 months (EBL and EIS group). Variceal recurrence was verified in 21.7% of patients of the EBL group and 16% of the EBL and EIS group, but the difference was not statistically important. Several complications, such as dysphagia and chest pain, were statistically more frequent in the EBL and EIS group of patients.

CONCLUSION

The combined method of ligation and extra sclerosing of remnant small oesophageal varices after ligation does not have advantage in relation to the ligation alone.

Endoscopic band ligation followed by sclerotherapy: Is it superior to sclerotherapy in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is scarcity of data about children on a combination of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST). We assessed the efficacy of EVL followed by EST and EST alone in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO).

METHODS

From January 2000 to March 2007, 186 consecutive children (mean age 6.3 ± 4.2 years, 82% boys) with EHPVO with variceal bleeding were included. EVL followed by EST (Group I, n = 101) or EST alone (Group II, n = 60) was carried out at 3-weekly intervals until eradication. Surveillance endoscopy was done at 3 to 6-monthly intervals. In all cases, the number of sessions required to eradicate the esophageal varices, the volume of sclerosant, the complications and the endoscopic outcome on follow up were recorded.

RESULTS

Eradication was achieved in 158 of 161 (98%) children and 25 were lost to follow up. Group I required significantly fewer sessions (5.2 ± 1.8 vs 6.8 ± 2.8, P < 0.005), less sclerosant (13 ± 8.2 mL vs 30 ± 20 mL, P < 0.001) and had fewer complications (7% vs 28%, P < 0.001) as compared with Group II. On follow up (33 ± 17.6 months in Group I and 43 ± 16.7 months in Group II), there was a significant increase in the prevalence of portal hypertensive gastropathy as well as isolated gastric varices in both the groups. However, the prevalence of gastroesophageal varices decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL followed by EST is better than EST alone in children with EHPVO as it requires fewer sessions and has fewer complications. However, following eradication, evolution of gastric varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy was similar in the two groups.

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.

Microwave coagulation versus sclerotherapy after band ligation to prevent recurrence of high risk of bleeding esophageal varices in Child-Pugh's A and B patients

BACKGROUND

The combination of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) with either endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) or thermal therapy has been shown to reduce recurrence of esophageal varices compared to EBL alone. The aim of this prospective trial was twofold: 1) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EBL used in association with microwave coagulation (MC), a thermal endoscopic therapy method, for treating esophageal varices and preventing recurrence; and 2) to compare these results to the joint application of EBL and EIS.

METHODS

Seventy cirrhotic patients with bleeding esophageal varices were treated with EBL until only thin vessels remained. Thirty-six randomly selected patients received EIS (group A) and 34 received MC (group B) until complete eradication had been achieved. Endoscopic follow-up was performed to detect recurrence. The effectiveness of the treatment was measured using variceal recurrence, rebleeding, intervention complications, and recurrence factors.

RESULTS

During follow-up evaluations averaging 34.9 +/- 11.4 months, no significant differences were found between groups A and B in variceal recurrence (27.7 vs. 17.6%, P = 0.31) or rebleeding (8.3 vs. 0%, P = 0.23). Complications were rare, with no difference detected between groups. The presence of gastric varices influenced recurrence with an odds ratio of 3.9 (95% CI 1.14-13.1, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of MC to esophageal varices after band ligation is safe. The post-MC recurrence rate may be comparable to that observed following the combined treatment of EBL and EIS. The presence of gastric varices increases the risk of esophageal variceal recurrence.

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.

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.

Prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding

The rate of rebleeding of esophageal varices remains high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. When considering their effectiveness in reduction of rebleeding, the associated complications cannot be neglected. Due to unavoidable high incidence of complications, shunt surgery and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy are now rarely used. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt was developed to replace shunt operation but is now reserved for rescue therapy. Nonselective beta-blockers alone or in combination with isosorbide mononitrate and endoscopic variceal ligation are currently the first choices in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The combination of nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation appear to enhance the efficacy. With the advent of newly developed measures, esophageal variceal rebleeding could be greatly reduced and the survival of cirrhotics with bleeding esophageal varices could thereby be prolonged.

Interventional upper endoscopy: the pediatric perspective

Pediatric endoscopy has evolved from a purely observational modality into one with the potential for many therapeutic applications. Common therapeutic uses of endoscopy in children now include treatment of variceal bleeds and foreign body retrieval and newer procedures such as endoluminal gastroplication and endoscopic pyloromyotomy. Continuing research in pediatric endoscopy will allow pediatric gastroenterologists to perfect existing interventional endoscopic techniques and to learn to perform new ones.

Band ligation plus sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy alone in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction

Although endoscopic band ligation (EVL) plus sclerotherapy (EST) has shown to be superior to any individual method, there is no study in children. We therefore analyzed our experience of EST and EVL + EST in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO). Over a period of 8 years, 136 children who presented with a history of recent variceal bleeding due to EHPVO were studied; 30 of them received EVL + EST and 106 received EST alone. In the EVL + EST group, after the first session of EVL, EST was done three times weekly until variceal eradication was achieved. The mean age of these children was 7 +/- 3.6 years with a male-to-female ratio of 2.6:1. The rate of eradication was comparable in both groups (100% in EVL + EST and 96% in EST). However, EVL + EST group required a significantly fewer sessions and lower volume of sclerosant (2 +/- 1 vs. 4.4 +/- 2 sessions, P < 0.001 and 3.1 +/- 2 mL versus 7.5 +/- 4 mL, P < 0.001 respectively). There were significantly less complications in EVL + EST group (10% vs. 36%, P < 0.01). Over a mean follow-up of 27 months, varices recurred in 6.6% and 10% cases, respectively. EVL + EST is a better method in the treatment of esophageal varices in children with EHPVO than EST alone, as it required fewer session and had fewer complication.

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Endoscopic therapy for nonvariceal bleeding should only be used if major stigmata of hemorrhage such as active bleeding and nonbleeding visible vessel are present. Treatment of peptic ulcers with adherent clots is currently controversial. Combination of epinephrine injection and coaptive coagulation is most effective in achieving endoscopic hemostasis. Hemoclips may be preferable for very deep ulcers and large visible blood vessels if coaptive coagulation is anticipated to have a high risk of perforation or bleeding. Adrenaline injection or hemoclip application should be used in bleeding Mallory-Weiss tears, as the safety of thermal methods is not well established. Argon plasma coagulation is the mainstay of endoscopic treatment for superficial lesions such as angiodysplasia and gastric antral vascular ectasia. Both sclerotherapy and band ligation are effective in acute hemostasis of bleeding esophageal varices. Variceal band ligation is preferred due to its superior safety profile and shorter procedure time. Due to the early recurrence of varices after banding ligation, there may be a role for metachronous combination therapy of ligation followed by sclerotherapy. Histoacryl glue is the preferred method of endoscopic hemostasis in gastric varices.

Update on treatment of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage accounts for one third of all deaths related to cirrhosis. To date, many modalities of treating variceal bleeding have been devised, including pharmacological therapy. Treatment of variceal hemorrhage includes resuscitation, initial hemostasis, and prevention of complications and recurrent bleeding. Intravenous vasoactive agents such as terlipressin, somatostatin, octreotide, or vapreotide should be administered in patients with suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopic treatment remains the mainstay of treatment. Endoscopic variceal ligation is safer and more efficacious than sclerotherapy as initial treatment of bleeding esophageal varices, whereas cyanoacrylate injection is the endoscopic treatment of choice for gastric varices. An adjuvant vasoactive agent is useful for the prevention of early rebleeding. Prophylactic antibiotics are increasingly used for prevention of infection, notably spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Follow-up endoscopic treatment is necessary in order to obliterate residual varices. The combination of a beta blocker and nitrate is an essential component of secondary prophylaxis for recurrent variceal bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or surgery offers the best salvage therapy in patients with failed hemostasis or breakthrough recurrent bleeding despite medical and endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic ultrasonography is useful in the prediction of recurrence of varices and facilitates visualization and guidance of further treatment of gastric varices. Despite advances in the treatment of variceal bleeding, liver function remains the determining factor of patient survival. Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment that can alter the course of the disease.

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.

Variceal Hemorrhage

Reducing morbidity and mortality from esophageal varices remains a challenge for physicians managing patients with chronic liver disease. For patients who have never bled from varices, prophylactic therapy with nonselective beta-blockers reduces the risk of initial variceal bleeding and bleeding-related death. Thus, patients with newly diagnosed cirrhosis should be considered for endoscopic variceal screening. All patients with Child's class B and C cirrhosis should be offered endoscopic screening, whereas those with Child's class A with evidence of portal hypertension (eg, platelet count less than 140,000 per milliliter, portal vein diameter larger than 13 mm, evidence of splenic varices on ultrasound) should be screened. The principal risk factors for variceal bleeding are variceal size, the presence of color changes on the variceal wall (indicative of decreased wall thickness), and degree of liver dysfunction. Patients with moderate or large sized varices and those with varices exhibiting color changes (eg, red wale marks, cherry red spots) should be treated with beta-blockers. Individuals without varices and those with small varices should undergo repeat endoscopy at approximately 2-year intervals. Patients unwilling or unable to take beta-blockers do not need to be screened. For patients with acute variceal bleeding, the combination of pharmacologic therapy plus endoscopic therapy is superior to either therapy alone. Octreotide is the drug most often used as initial therapy in the United States. Terlipressin is the preferred agent; however, it is not available in the United States. Endoscopy is performed as early as possible, and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy or endoscopic variceal band ligation is employed if variceal bleeding is confirmed or suspected. Endoscopic therapy should be repeated until the varices are obliterated completely. The addition of beta-blockers to endoscopic sclerotherapy or ligation may decrease the rate of rebleeding compared with receiving endoscopic treatment alone. Patients with bleeding refractory to combined medical plus endoscopic therapy should be considered for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts or shunt surgery.