Endoscopic rectal variceal ligation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campbell EV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7276934 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Endoscopic rectal variceal ligation.
Campbell Earl V EV Aslanian Harry R HR Muniraj Thiruvengadam T
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20200603 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:Video 1This video details our case as well as our method for successfully eradicating varices immediately prior to esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection to minimize risks of variceal hemorrhage.
| S-EPMC9716359 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7003062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with vasoconstrictors has been recommended for acute esophageal variceal bleeding. However, the optimal duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of short-course vasoconstrictors (≤3 days) versus standard combination (3-5 days). A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases with subsequent meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, mortality, and treatment failure rates. A risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval is used for outcome comparison. Nine randomized studies with 838 patients were included. The initial hemostasis (96.8% vs 97.4%, p = 0.919), 5-day rebleeding (11.2% vs 8.3%, RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.62-1.76), mortality (0 vs 1.3%, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.10-2.39), and treatment failure (7.4% vs 5.9%, RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.48-2.49) were similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis suggested EVL alone had no significant difference of 5-day re-bleeding (15.9% vs 7.1%, RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 0.87-5.77), mortality (0 vs 0.7%, RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.08-6.03), treatment failure (9.6% vs 6.7%, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.54-3.75) compared to standard combination. Clinical heterogeneity was found for the rebleeding rate for the subgroup during sensitivity analysis. EVL with short-course vasoconstrictors is highly efficacious for esophageal variceal bleeding. Further studies are required to determine the genuine need of subsequent vasoconstrictor after successful EVL.
| S-EPMC10450723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe safety of continuing anticoagulation therapy during endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of anticoagulation therapy in EVL.MethodsWe systematically searched four electronic databases from their inception until 1 June 2024, for studies that evaluated anticoagulation use and risk of rebleeding among patients undergoing EVL. The primary endpoint was rebleeding after EVL. The secondary endpoints were post-banding ulcer bleeding (PBUB) and variceal eradication rate. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024556094.ResultsA total of 5617 participants from nine studies (eight cohort studies and one randomised trial) were included. The most common type of anticoagulation is low-molecular-weight heparin, followed by warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). The pooled risk of rebleeding was 10.9% (95%CI: 6.3-16.5; I2 = 65.5%). Concurrent anticoagulation during EVL did not increase the risk of overall rebleeding (OR, 1.10; 95%CI: 0.85-1.42, I2 = 0%), PBUB (OR, 1.04; 95%CI, 0.48-2.24; I2 = 24%) or severe bleeding (OR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.31-2.85; I2 = 0%). Variceal eradication rates were similar, regardless of the use of anticoagulation therapy during EVL.ConclusionAnticoagulation did not increase the risk of rebleeding in patients who underwent EVL. Since the certainty of evidence is low, these findings should be confirmed in future randomised trials.
| S-EPMC11887417 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC10873287 | 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: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 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:BackgroundHerein, our group designed a novel technology, termed balloon compression-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS), which was applied to improve the efficiency of eradicating esophageal varices (EVs). The present study aimed to compare the rate of eradication and efficacy between bc-EIS and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of EVs.MethodsNinety-five patients with esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) were randomly assigned to receive bc-EIS or ligation alone. Additional treatment sessions were held 1 month later and then at 3-month intervals until eradication of the varices was achieved. Endoscopic follow-up examinations were carried out at 6-month intervals in the absence of recurrence or immediately if there was any recurrent bleeding.ResultsThe mean physical injection points per session were 2.89 ± 0.79, and the mean volume of lauromacrogol used per session was 17.74 ± 7.09 ml in the bc-EIS group. The mean band per session was 6.13 ± 0.86. The rate of eradication after one to three rounds of bc-EIS was obviously higher than that of the EVL group (89.36%, 97.87%, and 100% vs. 37.5%, 43.75%, and 47.92%, respectively). Retrosternal pain or discomfort in the bc-EIS group was slightly lower than that in the EVL group (23.4%, 11/47 vs. 31.25%, 15/48). Two and five patients showed mild abdominal bloating and distension between the bc-EIS and EVL groups, respectively (2/47, 4.26% vs. 5/48, 10.42% P > 0.05). Nausea and vomiting were reported in one patient (1/47, 2.13%) in the bc-EIS group and three patients (3/48, 6.25%) in the EVL group. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). No fatal or severe complications, such as esophageal perforation, esophageal stricture or ectopic embolism, were observed.ConclusionThe bc-EIS method was effective in eradicating EVs and was accompanied by fewer complications.
| S-EPMC9485182 | biostudies-literature