CT portography with gastric variceal volume measurements in the evaluation of endoscopic therapeutic efficacy of tissue adhesive injection into gastric varices: a pilot study

Efficacy of CTPV for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Assessment: Comparison with Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients with Gastroesophageal Varices

Background and Aims

Computed tomography portal venography (CTPV) shows potential in detecting varices that need treatment and their drainage pathways. However, its agreement with endoscopy requires further study. We investigated the feasibility of CTPV as an alternative tool to endoscopy in screening gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) and developed a CTPV-based model to provide a less invasive assessment of endotherapy for cirrhotic patients with GEVs.

Methods

The study included 33 cirrhotic patients with a recent history of variceal hemorrhage. The presence, grade, and classification of GEVs on endoscopy and CTPV were compared (kappa test). Twenty-four patients were treated endoscopically, including 12 for esophageal varices (EVs), 8 for gastric varices (GVs), and 4 for GEVs. Treatment efficacies were assessed with the newly developed CTPV-based method at 1 week and 1 month after treatment. Efficiency evaluated by CTPV and endoscopy was compared by Fisher's exact test to determine whether CTPV is efficient in the assessment of endotherapy efficacy.

Results

For the screening and grading/classification of EVs and GVs, substantial agreement (EV kappa: 0.63 and 0.68; GV kappa: 0.62 and 0.75, respectively) was noted between endoscopy and CTPV. The therapeutic efficacy of EVs was higher when assessed by CTPV than when evaluated by endoscopy (37.50% vs. 12.50% at 1 week postoperation, P = 0.22; 62.50% vs. 25.00% at 1 month postoperation, P = 0.07), but without statistical significance. The same trend was also found in the assessment of therapeutic efficacy for GVs (25.00% vs. 16.67% at 1 week postoperation, P = 1; 58.33% vs. 41.67% at 1 month postoperation, P = 0.68).

Conclusion

CTPV is comparable to endoscopy in the detection of GEVs and in the evaluation of endotherapy efficacy, which suggests that it could be a less invasive alternative for endoscopy in cirrhotic patients with GEVs needing treatment.

Computed Tomographic Portography with Esophageal Variceal Measurements in the Evaluation of Esophageal Variceal Severity and Assessment of Esophageal Variceal Volume Efficacy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to evaluate the severity of esophageal varices (EV), based on the computed tomographic portography (CTP) measurement of EV in the distal esophagus and to assess the prediction value of EV volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 53 EV patients examined by CTP within 4 weeks of upper endoscopy were evaluated, the patients were divided into a nonconspicuous EV group (mild-to-moderate EV, n = 28) and a conspicuous EV group (severe EV, n = 25) according to endoscopy results. The diameter, cross-sectional surface area (CSA), and volume of EV were measured independently using 3D-slicer (Boston) by two experienced abdominal radiologists blinded to endoscopy findings. The averaged values measured by the two observers were used in the final dataset, these indicators' predictive performances were studied by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and the area under the curve (A_z) and the cutoff values were calculated to distinguish mild-to-moderate from severe EV.

RESULTS

The A_z values of volume, diameter and CSA in differentiating severe EV were 0.817, 0.794, and 0.784 for observer-1, corresponding values for observer-2 were 0.796, 0.774, and 0.707, there was almost perfect interobserver agreement for all measurements. All indices were larger in the conspicuous group than the nonconspicuous group in both observers (p ≤ 0.01). In the final dataset, application of a 654.0-mm³-volume criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 96%, 50%, application of a 5.2-mm-diameter criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 80%, 75%, and application of a 68.6-mm²-CSA criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 52%, 93%.

CONCLUSION

The volume of EV could be used as a new effective indictor for evaluating EV, and use of volume, diameter, and CSA of EV based on CTP allows discrimination between mild-to-moderate and severe EV in cirrhotic patients.

Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with or without lauromacrogol for gastric varices: A randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Current guidelines recommend injection of cyanoacrylate as first-line therapy to prevent gastric variceal rebleeding. The method still poses a risk of ectopic embolism, which possibly correlates with the volume of cyanoacrylate used. In this trial, we evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety of tissue adhesive injection combined with lauromacrogol for treating gastric varices.

METHODS

Patients admitted to our hospital for variceal hemorrhage were enrolled and blindly randomized into two treatment groups: lauromacrogol group (lauromacrogol-cyanoacrylate-lauromacrogol) and lipiodol group (lipiodol-cyanoacrylate-lipiodol). Patient follow-up was 6 months. Primary outcome was rebleeds, and secondary outcomes were mortality, gastric varices eradication, and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Between March 6, 2013 and October 16, 2013, 96 patients met the criteria. Two cases were lost to follow-up, and all treated cases were successful. No procedural-related adverse events were observed in either group. Cyanoacrylate volumes used in the lauromacrogol group were significantly less than those of the lipiodol group (0.9 ± 0.5 vs 2.0 ± 1.2 mL, P = 0.000). Eleven patients developed upper gastrointestinal rebleeding, which did not show significant difference between groups. On multivaritate analysis, portal venous thrombosis and fever were potential risk factors of rebleeding. Treatment failure, complications, gastric varices obturation, and survival did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Tissue adhesives combined with lauromacrogol is a safe therapeutic option for gastric varices, with comparably less cyanoacrylate volume used. Because of the small number of study patients, it cannot be proven to have better efficacy than without lauromacrogol. Multicenter studies with larger patient groups are necessary.

Splenic artery embolization for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices secondary to splenic vein thrombosis

Splenic vein thrombosis can lead to gastric varices. Subsequent upper gastrointestinal bleeding may ensue related to the change in venous outflow to the portal system. Vascular surgeons are infrequently asked to assist in the management of this entity. However, with many vascular surgeons providing diverse endovascular-based interventions, understanding catheter-based solutions is imperative. This report presents a case in which arterial embolization was used to treat gastric variceal bleeding.

Practical approach to endoscopic management for bleeding gastric varices

Bleeding from gastric varices is generally more severe than bleeding from esophageal varices, although it occurs less frequently. Recently, new endoscopic treatment options and interventional radiological procedures have broadened the therapeutic armamentarium for gastric varices. This review provides an overview of the classification and pathophysiology of gastric varices, an introduction to current endoscopic and interventional radiological management options for gastric varices, and details of a practical approach to endoscopic variceal obturation using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate.