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: Not available
| S-EPMC10873287 | 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:ObjectivesEndoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR-L and ESD for small rectal NETs.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR-L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome.ResultsEighty-nine patients were treated by ESMR-L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR-L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less-experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR-L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27).ConclusionsFor small rectal NETs, both ESMR-L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR-L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less-experienced endoscopists.
| S-EPMC9478042 | 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