Medical and endoscopic management of gastric varices.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Osaimi AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3312167 | biostudies-other | 2011 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimBleeding from gastric varices is a catastrophic event and poses difficulty in management. The efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate injection remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the management of gastric varices.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus databases, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through November 2020 and manually reviewed the literature. Trial-specific risk ratios (RRs) were estimated and pooled using random-effect model meta-analysis.ResultsWe included seven randomized controlled trials (six for secondary prophylaxis and one for primary prophylaxis) at low risk of bias in which 126 deaths were reported among 583 patients with gastric varices. All studies reported the use of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate glue. Cyanoacrylate use was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.98; I2 = 41%) and rebleeding rate after hemostasis (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, I2 = 0%) compared with any other treatment approach not involving cyanoacrylate. When cyanoacrylate was compared with each individual treatment approach (propranolol only, band ligation, sclerotherapy with alcohol or ethanolamine), data comprised sparse limited comparative conclusions. The use of cyanoacrylate injection was not associated with an increase in serious adverse events. The quality of evidence is moderate, graded down due to the small number of events and wide CIs.ConclusionThe use of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy for gastric varices may be associated with lower all-cause mortality and better hemostasis compared with other therapies.
| S-EPMC8454477 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7730510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gastric varices are encountered less frequently than esophageal varices. Nonetheless, gastric variceal bleeding is more severe and associated with worse outcomes. Conventionally, gastric varices have been described based on the location and extent and endoscopic treatments offered based on these descriptions. With improved understanding of portal hypertension and the dynamic physiology of collateral circulation, gastric variceal classification has been refined to include inflow and outflow based hemodynamic pathways. These have led to an improvement in the management of gastric variceal disease through newer modalities of treatment such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided glue-coiling combination therapy and the emergence of highly effective endovascular treatments such as shunt and variceal complex embolization with or without transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in patients who are deemed 'difficult' to manage the traditional way. Furthermore, the decisions regarding TIPS and additional endovascular procedures in patients with gastric variceal bleeding have changed after the emergence of 'portal hypertension theories' of proximity, throughput, and recruitment. The hemodynamic classification, grounded on novel theories and its cognizance, can help in identifying patients at baseline, in whom conventional treatment could fail. In this exhaustive review, we discuss the conventional and hemodynamic diagnosis of gastric varices concerning new classifications; explore and illustrate new 'portal hypertension theories' of gastric variceal disease and corresponding management and shed light on current evidence-based treatments through a 'new' algorithmic approach, established on hemodynamic physiology of gastric varices.
| S-EPMC7602314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic injection of gastric varices (GVs) using cyanoacrylate (CYA) is associated with significant adverse events (AEs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided CYA injection into the perforating vein versus direct endoscopic injection (DEI) of CYA in treatment of high-risk GVs. Patients and methods This was a randomized controlled trial that included 52 patients with high-risk GVs. Group A underwent EUS-guided injection into the perforator vein and Group B underwent DEI of 1 mL CYA. Endoscopic examination and Doppler EUS were repeated after 3 months to confirm eradication. Obliteration by Doppler EUS was considered by absence of Doppler flow within the varix. Repeated injection was performed in the absence of obliteration. Doppler EUS examination was repeated at 3 and 6 months after each injection. Results Forty-three patients including 27 males and 16 females with mean age 57 years completed the study. Variceal obliteration was achieved during the index session after 3 months in eight of 21 (38.1 %) in group B compared to 17 of 22 (77.2 %) in group A ( P = 0.014). There was a significant difference in the amount of CYA needed to achieve obliteration in group B compared to group A (2 vs.1 mL, P = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall AE rate between group A and group B (4.5 % vs. 14.3 %, P = 0.345). Conclusions EUS-guided CYA injection into the perforating veins achieved less amount of CYA, fewer number of sessions to obliteration, and similar overall AE rates in the treatment of high-risk GVs compared to DEI.
| S-EPMC9949986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tumor bleeding is not a rare complication in patients with inoperable gastric cancer. Endoscopy has important roles in the diagnosis and primary treatment of tumor bleeding, similar to its roles in other non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. Although limited studies have been performed, endoscopic therapy has been highly successful in achieving initial hemostasis. One or a combination of endoscopic therapy modalities, such as injection therapy, mechanical therapy, or ablative therapy, can be used for hemostasis in patients with endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage. However, rebleeding after successful hemostasis with endoscopic therapy frequently occurs. Endoscopic therapy may be a treatment option for successfully controlling this rebleeding. Transarterial embolization or palliative surgery should be considered when endoscopic therapy fails. For primary and secondary prevention of tumor bleeding, proton pump inhibitors can be prescribed, although their effectiveness to prevent bleeding remains to be investigated.
| S-EPMC4381138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Tissue adhesive injection is the first-line treatment for gastric varices rebleeding. Available studies are focused on antibiotic usage in emergency endoscopy, while the use of antibiotics in selective endoscopic tissue adhesive treatment remains controversial. METHODS:This is a randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. Consecutive patients were enrolled from February 16, 2016, to November 19, 2016, and blindly randomized into two treatment groups. Patients in the prophylactic group received 2 g of cefotiam during endoscopic injection of tissue adhesive. All the subjects were observed for rebleeding, fever, and changes in laboratory indicators in hospital and post-discharge. RESULT:One hundred and seven patients who received endoscopic therapy for gastroesophageal varices were included. Fifty-three patients were allocated to the antibiotic prophylactic group and 54 patients to the on-demand group. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The incidence of fever in hospital was 2/53 (3.8%) vs 9/54 (16.7%) (P = 0.028). Perioperative and postoperative clinical events were significantly lower in the antibiotic prophylactic group (5.7% vs 24.1%, P = 0.018; 7.5% vs 20.4%, P = 0.050). Inflammation indices were elevated on the first day after endoscopic therapy; however, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. The cumulative rebleeding free rate within 2 months was lower in the antibiotic prophylactic group (1.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.100). CONCLUSION:Our study illustrated that prophylactic use of antibiotics in selective endoscopic injection of tissue adhesive reduced the incidence of the total clinical events in perioperative period and had a trend towards lower rebleeding in 2 months.
| S-EPMC6852571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGastric variceal (GV) bleeding is a feared complication of cirrhosis. Traditional endoscopic treatment with cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection can be challenging. Alternatively, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided delivery of hemostatic coils has shown high therapeutic success without the complications profile of CYA alone. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes of EUS-guided coil embolization with endoscopic CYA injection for the treatment of GV.MethodsWe performed a matched cohort study using a prospective registry involving 2 tertiary centers. A total of 10 patients undergoing EUS-based coil therapy were matched in 1:3 fashion to 30 patients who underwent CYA injection. The matching criteria included type of GV, Charlson comorbidity index, and bleeding severity. Primary outcomes were technical success and complications. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding rates, reinterventions rates, total transfusion requirements, and time-to-event analysis (rebleeding, reintervention, and transfusion).ResultsTechnical success was 100% for EUS coil therapy vs 96.7% for CYA injection (P = 1.0). Complication rates were 10% in the EUS coil group vs 20% in the CYA group; P = 0.65. At 9 months, no EUS coil patient had rebled compared with 38% of the CYA group. No EUS coil patient required blood transfusion for GV rebleed, whereas over 50% of CYA patients did. Ten percent of EUS coil patients required reintervention compared with 60% of CYA patients. The EUS coil group had superior time to reintervention, GV rebleed, and transfusions (all P < 0.05).DiscussionCompared with CYA, EUS-guided coil injection appears superior for the treatment of GV and should be considered initial endoscopic treatment of choice in centers with interventional EUS expertise.
| S-EPMC7263642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of esophageal varices. A 50-year-old man with schistosomiasis-induced liver fibrosis presented with melena and hematemesis. The bleeding stopped after intravenous administration of somatostatin and ceftriaxone for 4 days. Balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) was performed with the patient under general anesthesia to prevent rebleeding. The novel device for bc-EIS is composed of a syringe, a stopcock, a catheter, and an inflatable balloon. In the majority of patients with cirrhosis, the blood flow from the coronary vein drains into the azygos and hemiazygos venous system through esophageal and para-esophageal varices, and eventually back to the inferior vena cava. With compression of proximal esophageal and para-esophageal varices via an inflated balloon, sclerosant can be retained at the injection site, rather than flowing back to the inferior vena cava. Endoscopy revealed the presence of moderately enlarged, beady esophageal varices with red wale signs in the middle and lower esophagus. An inflatable balloon was fixed to an endoscope at a distance of 3 cm from its distal end. When the end of the endoscope was introduced to the target varices, 20 mL of air was injected into the balloon through a thin catheter, making its outer diameter expand to 3.5 cm. A disposable endoscopic injection needle then entered the base of the variceal columns near the cardia. When blood flowed back into the needle, a mixture of Lauromacrogol and methylene blue was intravariceally administered. Minor bleeding at the injection site was stopped through brief compression with the needle sheath. The second injection was performed following the aforementioned procedure. Follow-up endoscopy at 1 month, 4 months, and 7 months revealed the progression from thrombosed blue varices to complete eradication of esophageal varices. Endoscopic ultrasonography also showed the absence of blood flow in the varices after treatment. To date, bc-EIS has been performed successfully on 28 patients with esophageal varices. Variceal eradication was obtained in 17 patients with 1 session, 10 patients with 2 sessions, and 1 patient with 3 sessions. Two patients showed recurrence of esophageal varices on routine follow-up endoscopy and were re-treated with bc-EIS successfully. There were no severe complications during the follow-up period. With the sclerosant retained at injection sites after balloon compression, bc-EIS enables complete eradication of esophageal varices and lowers the risk of recurrence. The blockade of sclerosant also decreases the incidence of complications related to large-volume injection of sclerosant, such as embolization, ulceration, and perforation. In conclusion, bc-EIS appears to be an effective and safe approach for the treatment of esophaeal varices. Further research is underway to determine its suitability for large-scale clinical application.
| S-EPMC8755456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Variceal haemorrhage is a severe complication of liver disease with high mortality. Human recombinant thrombin has gained popularity in the management of variceal haemorrhage. We report on the use of thrombin for gastric and ectopic varices at a regional tertiary care centre. This was a retrospective observational study. Patients with portal hypertension who received endoscopic injection of recombinant thrombin were identified and data collected on haemostasis and rebleeding rates, complications and mortality. Patients were grouped by indication for thrombin injection: gastric/oesophageal/ectopic varices and endoscopic band ligation (EBL)-induced ulceration. 155 patients (96M/59F, mean age 58.3 years) received endoscopic thrombin injection. Mean volume of thrombin injected at index endoscopy was 9.5 ml/2375IU. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 144 patients (92.9%). Rebleeding occurred in a total of 53 patients (36.8%) divided as follows: early rebleeding (<5 days from index endoscopy)-26 patients (18%); rebleeding within 30 days-42 patients (29.1%); delayed rebleeding (> 30 days)-11 patients (7.6%). There was statistically significant difference in rate of initial haemostasis between Child-Pugh A/B patients vs Child-Pugh C (p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in rebleeding rates between different indication groups (p = 0.78), by presence of cirrhosis or by Child-Pugh Score. All-cause mortality at 6 weeks was 18.7%; 1-year mortality 37.4% (median follow-up 48 months). There was no significant difference in mortality between groups (p = 0.37). No significant adverse events or complications were reported. Thrombin is effective and safe for gastric varices and other portal-hypertension-related bleeding including oesophageal varices, ulcers secondary to EBL and ectopic varices.
| S-EPMC7920079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The management of acute esophageal variceal bleeding remains a clinical challenge. Band ligation is the main therapeutic option, but it may be technically difficult to perform in active bleeders. This may necessitate an alternative therapy for this group of patients. This study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy versus cyanoacrylate injection for management of actively bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients. METHODS:This prospective study included 113 cirrhotic patients with actively bleeding esophageal varices. They were randomly treated by endoscopic sclerotherapy or cyanoacrylate injection as banding was not suitable for those patients due to profuse bleeding making unclear endoscopic visual field. Primary outcome was incidence of active bleeding control and secondary outcomes were incidence of six weeks rebleeding, complications, and mortality among the studied patients. RESULTS:Initial bleeding control was significantly higher in cyanoacrylate versus sclerotherapy groups (98.25, 83.93% respectively, P?=?0.007). No significant differences between sclerotherapy and cyanoacrylate groups regarding rebleeding (26.79, 19.30% respectively, P?=?0.344), complications, hospital stay or mortality rate were observed. CONCLUSIONS:Based on this single-center prospective study, both of these therapies appear to have relatively favorable outcomes, although cyanoacrylate injection may be superior to sclerotherapy for initial control of active bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION:[ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03388125 ]-Date of registration: January 2, 2018 "Retrospectively registered".
| S-EPMC6362581 | biostudies-literature