Endoscopic rectal variceal ligation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campbell EV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7276934 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7003062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIdiopathic myelofibrosis is a chronic myeloproliferative disorder characterized by leukoerythroblastosis, massive splenomegaly, and increases in the reticular and collagen fibers in the bone marrow. Portal hypertension is observed in some patients with idiopathic myelofibrosis. Gastrointestinal hemorrhages, which are due mostly to the rupture of the esophageal varices, have been sporadically reported to be an infrequent complication of idiopathic myelofibrosis.Case presentationWe report a case of a Japanese 63-year-old woman with myelofibrosis and variceal hemorrhage, with a background of concomitant portal and pulmonary hypertension. She was successfully treated through a combination of endoscopic variceal ligation and chemotherapy.ConclusionThis is the first known report on the successful application of endoscopic variceal ligation and chemotherapy as the therapeutic procedure for an esophageal variceal hemorrhage in a patient with myelofibrosis.
| S-EPMC2830976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection on post-endoscopic variceal ligation scars with injection under red dichromatic imaging.
| S-EPMC8645840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of beta-blockers in decompensated cirrhosis accompanying ascites is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and incidence of cirrhotic complications between endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) only and EVL + non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) combination therapy in cirrhotic patients with significant ascites (?grade 2).This retrospective study included 271 consecutive cirrhotic patients with ascites who were treated with EVL only or EVL + NSBB combination therapy as a primary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed between the 2 groups to minimize baseline difference.Median observation period was 42.1 months (interquartile range, 18.4-75.1 months). All patients had deteriorated liver function: 81.1% Child-Pugh class B and 18.9% Child-Pugh class C. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the EVL + NSBB group than in the EVL only group not only in non-matched cohort, but also in matched cohort (48.9% vs 31.2%; P?=?.039). More people died from hepatic failure in the EVL + NSBB group than that in the EVL only group (40.5% vs 20.0%; P?=?.020). However, the incidence of variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was not significantly different between the 2 groups.The use of NSBB might worsen the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with significant ascites. These results suggest that EVL alone is a more appropriate treatment option for prophylaxis of esophageal varices than propranolol combination therapy when patients have significant ascites.
| S-EPMC7004788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe appropriate number of band ligations during the first endoscopic session for acute variceal bleeding is debatable. We aimed to compare the technical aspects of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in patients with variceal bleeding according to the number of bands placed per session.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed multicenter data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding. Patients were classified into minimal EVL (targeting only the foci with active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding) and maximal EVL (targeting potential bleeding sources in addition to the aforementioned targets) groups. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment failure. The secondary endpoints were 30-day rebleeding, 30-day mortality, and intraprocedural adverse events.ResultsMinimal EVL was associated with lower rates of hypoxia and shock during EVL than maximal EVL (hypoxia, 0.9% vs 2.9%; shock, 1.3% vs 3.4%). However, treatment failure was higher in the minimal EVL group than in the maximal EVL group (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.41). Age ≥60 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥15, Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification C, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, and systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg at initial presentation were also associated with treatment failure. In contrast, 30-day rebleeding and 30-day mortality did not differ between the minimal and maximal EVL groups.ConclusionsGiven that minimal EVL was associated with a high risk of treatment failure, maximal EVL may be a better option for variceal bleeding. However, the minimal EVL strategy should be considered in select patients because it does not affect 30-day rebleeding and mortality.
| S-EPMC8761925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The impact of adjuvant acid suppression via proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists after endoscopic variceal ligation remains uncertain. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effect of adjuvant acid suppression on the rebleeding and mortality rates in patients who received endoscopic variceal ligation and vasoconstrictor therapy for bleeding esophageal varices. Data from 1997 to 2011 were extracted from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A total of 1576 cirrhotic patients aged > 18 years with a primary diagnosis of acute esophageal variceal bleeding who received endoscopic variceal ligation therapy were screened. After strict exclusion, 637 patients were recruited. The exclusion criteria included patients with gastric variceal bleeding, failure in the control of bleeding, mortality within 12 hours, and history of hepatocellular carcinoma or gastric cancer. Patients were divided into two groups: the vasoconstrictors group (n = 126) and vasoconstrictors plus acid suppression group (n = 511). We observed that the rebleeding and mortality rates were not significantly different between 2 groups during hospitalization and the 15-year follow-up period after discharge. A Charlson score ≥3 (odds ratio: 2.42, 95% confidence interval: 1.55 ~3.79, P = 0.0001), presence of hepatitis C virus (odds ratio: 1.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 ~2.52, P = 0.0085), and cirrhosis (odds ratio: 1.69, 95% confidence interval: 1.08 ~2.66, P = 0.0229) were the independent risk factors of mortality after discharge. In conclusion, the results of the current study suggest that adjuvant acid suppression prescription to patients who received endoscopic variceal ligation and vasoconstrictor therapy for bleeding esophageal varices may not change the rebleeding and mortality outcomes compared to that for those who received endoscopic variceal ligation and vasoconstrictor agents without acid suppression.
| S-EPMC5261564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic variceal ligation is the preferred endoscopic treatment method for esophageal variceal bleeding. The incidence of complications such as chest pain, bleeding, stricture formation, and aspiration pneumonia is low. We report a case wherein a malfunctioning multiple-band ligator could have potentially caused damage to the esophageal varices and massive bleeding. The equipment was safely removed using scissors and forceps. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published report detailing the management of a case of esophageal variceal bleeding.
| S-EPMC7137571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.
| S-EPMC5593651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The appropriate interval between ligation sessions for treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding is uncertain. The optimal interval would provide variceal eradication as rapidly as possible to lessen early rebleeding while minimizing ligation-induced adverse events. We randomly assigned patients hospitalized with acute esophageal variceal bleeding who had successful ligation at presentation to repeat ligation at 1-week or 2-week intervals. Beta-blocker therapy was also prescribed. Ligation was performed at the assigned interval until varices were eradicated and then at 3 and 9 months after eradication. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with variceal eradication at 4 weeks. Four-week variceal eradication occurred more often in the 1-week than in the 2-week group: 37/45 (82%) versus 23/45 (51%); difference = 31%, 95% confidence interval 12%-48%. Eradication occurred more rapidly in the 1-week group (18.1 versus 30.8 days, difference = -12.7 days, 95% confidence interval -20.0 to -5.4 days). The mean number of endoscopies to achieve eradication or to the last endoscopy in those not achieving eradication was comparable in the 1-week and 2-week groups (2.3 versus 2.1), with the mean number of postponed ligation sessions 0.3 versus 0.1 (difference = 0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.4). Rebleeding at 4 weeks (4% versus 4%) and 8 weeks (11% versus 9%), dysphagia/odynophagia/chest pain (9% versus 2%), strictures (0% versus 0%), and mortality (7% versus 7%) were similar with 1-week and 2-week intervals.One-week ligation intervals led to more rapid eradication than 2-week intervals without an increase in complications or number of endoscopies and without a reduction in rebleeding or other clinical outcomes; the decision regarding ligation intervals may be individualized based on patient and physician preferences and local logistics and resources. (Hepatology 2016;64:549-555).
| S-EPMC4956532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEsophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is one of the high mortality complications in cirrhotic patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is currently the standard therapy for EVH. However, some patients have expired during hospitalization or survived shortly after management.AimTo evaluate hospital and 6-week mortality by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score compared to a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) class.MethodsWe retrospectively collected 714 cirrhotic patients with EVH post EVL between July 2010 and June 2016 at Taitung MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were calculated for all patients admitted.ResultsAmong the 714 patients, the overall hospital and 6-week mortality rates were 6.9% (49/715) and 13.1% (94/715) respectively. For predicting hospital death, area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were 0.964, 0.876, and 0.846. For predicting 6-week death, AUROC values of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were 0.943, 0.817, and 0.834. CLIF-SOFA score had higher AUROC value with statistical significance under pairwise comparison than did MELD score and CTP class in prediction of not only hospital but also 6-week mortality. The history of hepatocellular carcinoma was the risk factor for 6-week mortality. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma the cut-point of CLIF-SOFA score was 5.5 for 6-week mortality and 6.5 for hospital mortality on admission. For patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, the cut-point of CLIF-SOFA score was 6.5 for both 6-week and hospital mortality.ConclusionCLIF-SOFA score predicted post-EVL prognosis well. For patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, CLIF-SOFA score ?6 suggests higher 6-week mortality and CLIF-SOFA score ?7 suggests higher hospital mortality. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, CLIF-SOFA score ?7 suggests higher 6-week and hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC5540601 | biostudies-literature