Use of Wireless Capsule Endoscopy for the Diagnosis and Grading of Esophageal Varices in Patients With Portal Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pan-Enteric Capsule Endoscopy: Current Applications and Future Perspectives

Background

The role of capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of the small bowel is well established, and current guidelines position it as a first-line test in a variety of clinical scenarios. The advent of double-headed capsules further enabled the endoscopic assessment of colonic mucosa and the opportunity for a one-step noninvasive examination of the entire bowel (pan-enteric capsule endoscopy [PCE]).

Summary

We reviewed the technical procedure and preparation of patients for PCE, as well as its current clinical applications and future perspectives. In non-stricturing and non-penetrating Crohn's disease affecting the small bowel and colon, PCE monitors disease activity by assessing mucosal healing, a major treatment outcome, with a higher diagnostic yield than cross-sectional imaging or conventional colonoscopy. Also in ulcerative colitis, double-headed capsules have been used to monitor disease activity noninvasively. Currently, validated scoring systems have been specifically devised for these double-headed capsules and permit a standardized assessment of the inflammatory burden. In suspected mid-lower digestive bleeding, some exploratory studies have demonstrated the feasibility and high diagnostic yield of PCE, which may work as a filter indicating which patients may benefit of further invasive procedures, namely, for planned hemostatic procedures. The possibility of using PCE is also discussed in the context of polyposis syndromes with simultaneous involvement of the small intestine and colon.

Key Messages

PCE is a feasible, effective, and safe diagnostic procedure to evaluate the small bowel and colon. It has been increasingly explored in the setting of inflammatory bowel diseases and, more recently, in suspected mid-lower digestive bleeding. PCE is expected to reduce the demand for invasive procedures and expand the scope of noninvasive intestinal evaluation in the coming future.

Capsule endoscopy and panendoscopy: A journey to the future of gastrointestinal endoscopy

In 2000, the small bowel capsule revolutionized the management of patients with small bowel disorders. Currently, the technological development achieved by the new models of double-headed endoscopic capsules, as miniaturized devices to evaluate the small bowel and colon [pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE)], makes this non-invasive procedure a disruptive concept for the management of patients with digestive disorders. This technology is expected to identify which patients will require conventional invasive endoscopic procedures (colonoscopy or balloon-assisted enteroscopy), based on the lesions detected by the capsule, i.e., those with an indication for biopsies or endoscopic treatment. The use of PCE in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, namely Crohn's disease, as well as in patients with iron deficiency anaemia and/or overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, after a non-diagnostic upper endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy), enables an effective, safe and comfortable way to identify patients with relevant lesions, who should undergo subsequent invasive endoscopic procedures. The recent development of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy to evaluate the upper GI tract, is a further step towards the possibility of an entirely non-invasive assessment of all the segments of the digestive tract, from mouth-to-anus, meeting the expectations of the early developers of capsule endoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetically guided capsule endoscopy with a detachable string for detecting oesophagogastric varices in adults with cirrhosis: prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and safety of using magnetically guided capsule endoscopy with a detachable string (ds-MCE) for detecting and grading oesophagogastric varices in adults with cirrhosis.

DESIGN

Prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

14 medical centres in China.

PARTICIPANTS

607 adults (>18 years) with cirrhosis recruited between 7 January 2021 and 25 August 2022. Participants underwent ds-MCE (index test), followed by oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD, reference test) within 48 hours. The participants were divided into development and validation cohorts in a ratio of 2:1.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of ds-MCE in detecting oesophagogastric varices compared with OGD. Secondary outcomes included the sensitivity and specificity of ds-MCE for detecting high risk oesophageal varices and the diagnostic accuracy of ds-MCE for detecting high risk oesophagogastric varices, oesophageal varices, and gastric varices.

RESULTS

ds-MCE and OGD examinations were completed in 582 (95.9%) of the 607 participants. Using OGD as the reference standard, ds-MCE had a sensitivity of 97.5% (95% confidence interval 95.5% to 98.7%) and specificity of 97.8% (94.4% to 99.1%) for detecting oesophagogastric varices (both P<0.001 compared with a prespecified 85% threshold). When using the optimal 18% threshold for luminal circumference of the oesophagus derived from the development cohort (n=393), the sensitivity and specificity of ds-MCE for detecting high risk oesophageal varices in the validation cohort (n=189) were 95.8% (89.7% to 98.4%) and 94.7% (88.2% to 97.7%), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of ds-MCE for detecting high risk oesophagogastric varices, oesophageal varices, and gastric varices was 96.3% (92.6% to 98.2%), 96.9% (95.2% to 98.0%), and 96.7% (95.0% to 97.9%), respectively. Two serious adverse events occurred with OGD but none with ds-MCE.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that ds-MCE is a highly accurate and safe diagnostic tool for detecting and grading oesophagogastric varices and is a promising alternative to OGD for screening and surveillance of oesophagogastric varices in patients with cirrhosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748563.

Endoscope Capsules: The Present Situation and Future Outlooks

This paper presents new perspectives on photonic technologies for capsule endoscopy. It first presents a review of conventional endoscopy (upper endoscopy and colonoscopy), followed by capsule endoscopy (CE), as well as their techniques, advantages, and drawbacks. The technologies for CEs presented in this paper include integration with the existing endoscopic systems that are commercially available. Such technologies include narrow-band imaging (NBI), photodynamic therapy (PDT), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and spectroscopy in order to improve the performance of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract examination. In the context of NBI, two optical filters were designed and fabricated for integration into endoscopic capsules, allowing for the visualization of light centered at the 415 nm and 540 nm wavelengths. These optical filters are based on the principle of Fabry-Perot and were made of thin films of titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Moreover, strategies and solutions for the adaptation of ECs for PDT are also discussed.

Diagnosis and Management of Esophagogastric Varices

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a potentially fatal complication of clinically significant portal hypertension and is one of the most common causes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, esophagogastric varices represent a major economic and population health issue. Patients with advanced chronic liver disease typically undergo an upper endoscopy to screen for esophagogastric varices. However, upper endoscopy is not recommended for patients with liver stiffness < 20 KPa and platelet count > 150 × 10⁹/L as there is a low probability of high-risk varices. Patients with high-risk varices should receive primary prophylaxis with either nonselective beta-blockers or endoscopic band ligation. In cases of AVB, patients should receive upper endoscopy within 12 h after resuscitation and hemodynamic stability, whereas endoscopy should be performed as soon as possible if patients are unstable. In cases of suspected variceal bleeding, starting vasoactive therapy as soon as possible in combination with endoscopic treatment is recommended. On the other hand, in cases of uncontrolled bleeding, balloon tamponade or self-expandable metal stents can be used as a bridge to more definitive therapy such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This article aims to offer a comprehensive review of recommendations from international guidelines as well as recent updates on the management of esophagogastric varices.

Clinical guideline on magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy (2021 edition)

With the development and generalization of endoscopic technology and screening, clinical application of magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy (MCCG) has been increasing. In recent years, various types of MCCG are used globally. Therefore, establishing relevant guidelines on MCCG is of great significance. The current guidelines containing 23 statements were established based on clinical evidence and expert opinions, mainly focus on aspects including definition and diagnostic accuracy, application population, technical optimization, inspection process, and quality control of MCCG. The level of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated. The guidelines are expected to guide the standardized application and scientific innovation of MCCG for the reference of clinicians.

Modern tactics for acute variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (Baveno VII guidelines)

Modern tactics for acute variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (Baveno VII guidelines)

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Non-invasive diagnosis and follow-up of portal hypertension

Compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) describes the spectrum of advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis in asymptomatic patients at risk of developing clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, defined by a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥10 mmHg). Patients with cACLD are at high risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality. In patients at risk of chronic liver disease, cACLD is strongly suggested by a liver stiffness (LSM) value >15 kPa or clinical/biological/radiological signs of portal hypertension, and ruled out by LSM <10 kPa, or Fibrotest® ≤0.58, or Fibrometer® ≤0.786. Patients with chronic liver disease (excluding vascular diseases) with a LSM <10 kPa are at low risk of developing portal hypertension complications. The presence of CSPH can be strongly suspected when LSM is ≥20 kPa. In a patient without clinical, endoscopic or radiological features of portal hypertension, measurement of the HVPG is recommended before major liver or intra-abdominal surgery, before extra-hepatic transplantation and in patients with unexplained ascites. Endoscopic screening for oesophageal varices can be avoided in patients with LSM <20 kPa and a platelet count >150 G/L (favourable Baveno VI criteria) at the time of diagnosis. There is no non-invasive method alternative for oeso-gastroduodenal endoscopy in patients with unfavourable Baveno criteria (liver stiffness ≥20 kPa or platelet count ≤50 G/l). Platelet count and liver stiffness measurements must be performed once a year in patients with cACLD with favourable Baveno VI criteria at the time of diagnosis. A screening oeso-gastroduodenal endoscopy is recommended if Baveno VI criteria become unfavourable.

Balloon Tamponade for the Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a potentially life-threatening condition that requires rapid intervention. In critically ill patients who are refractory to other therapies, balloon tamponade devices can be lifesaving.

OBJECTIVE

We provide a review of balloon tamponade devices for gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding for emergency clinicians.

DISCUSSION

Balloon tamponade is intended for hemodynamically unstable patients with massive gastrointestinal bleeding and inability to perform endoscopy, failed endoscopy, delay in endoscopy, or the need to stabilize before transfer. There are 3 main tamponade devices: the Linton-Nachlas tube, the Sengstaken-Blakemore tube, and the Minnesota tube. Each tamponade device has some unique features including the number of balloons and ports. We describe the technique with pearls and pitfalls for placement.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential for emergency physicians to be familiar with balloon tamponade for acute gastrointestinal bleeding. We review the common balloon tamponade devices, and this article is intended to serve as a resource for those interested in expanding their knowledge of balloon tamponade. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Upper gastrointestinal video capsule endoscopy: The state of the art

BACKGROUND

Video capsule can illuminate the entire gastrointestinal mucosa. Upper gastrointestinal capsule endoscopy (UGICE) has the potential to survey for oesophageal, gastric and duodenal pathology and determine whether biopsy or intervention is indicated.

AIMS

This review traces the evolution of foregut video capsule endoscopy.

METHODS

A broad literature research was performed independently by two investigators. Extracted articles were organized and evaluated to interpret all current data.

RESULTS

In contrast to small bowel capsule, UGICE required sequential innovations to deal with rapid oesophageal transit, the irregular shape of the stomach and unpredictable gastric peristalsis. Oesophageal capsule endoscopy required the development of a two-camera device operating at a high frame rate, and postural change was developed to improve image capture, especially at the level of the Z-line, thus providing good imaging of Barrett's oesophagus, erosive oesophagitis and oesophageal varices, with optimal patients' tolerance. UGICE in patients presenting to the emergency room with acute bleeding has demonstrated accuracy when deciding on the need for emergency intervention. The latest development of a high frame rate UGICE, designed to image the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum has overtaken dedicated oesophageal capsule development. Capsule control is possible by exposing a magnetised capsule to an external magnetic field, and early reports indicate high accuracy in the oesophagus and stomach with high levels of patient acceptability. There is little information on cost-benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Capsule endoscopy offers gastroenterologists a new device to investigate the upper gastrointestinal tract with promising future potential.

New endoscopic capsule vs upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in preoperative work-up of obese candidate for bariatric surgery: Relevance of a pilot study in the COVID-19 era

Background and study aims  Obesity represents a major health concern; bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment reducing and maintaining weight loss. The role of a routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) prior bariatric surgery is still debated. Moreover, in this scenario of COVID-19 pandemic, EGD is even more questionable due to the procedural risk of viral transmission. A new model of video-endoscopic capsule (VEC) recently has been introduced as a good alternative to the EGD. The aim of this study was to determine if this new capsule is an adequate diagnostic alternative to EGD in the work-up of patients selected for bariatric surgery, particularly in the setting of COVID-19. Patients and methods  From January to November 2020, 27 patients selected for bariatric surgery were enrolled in this pilot study to assess for noninferiority of VEC compared to EGD in detection of upper gastrointestinal disease. Results  VEC had sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in identification of significant lesions of 91.3 %, 83.33 %, 98.01 %, and 51.57 %, respectively, compared with EGD as the standard criterion. The accuracy was 90.51 % (95 % CI, 73.75 %-98.18 %) and the chi-square statistic is 0.1153 ( P  = 0.73). Conclusions  Our report confirms the diagnostic noninferiority of VEC in preoperative work-up of patients selected for bariatric surgery, compared to EGD. This is very important, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the high risk of contamination with EGD. Larger multicenter studies are required to confirm our preliminary results.

Endoscopic Treatment of Esophageal Varices

Acute variceal bleeding is a complication of portal hypertension, usually due to cirrhosis, with high morbidity and mortality. There are 3 scenarios for endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices: prevention of first variceal bleed, treatment of active variceal bleed, and prevention of rebleeding. Patients with cirrhosis should be screened for esophageal varices. Recommended endoscopic therapy for acute variceal bleeding is endoscopic variceal banding. Although banding is the first-choice treatment, sclerotherapy may have a role. Treatment with Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or self-expanding covered metallic esophageal stent can be used for acute variceal bleeding refractory to standard pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy.

Similarity Analysis for Medical Images Using Color and Texture Histogramss

Medical databases usually contain a significant volume of images, therefore search engines based on low-level features frequently used to retrieve similar images are necessary for a fast operation. Color, texture, and shape are the most common features used to characterize an image, however extracting the proper features for image retrievals in a similar manner with the human cognition remains a constant challenge. These algorithms work by sorting the images based on a similarity index that defines how different two or more images are, and histograms are one of the most employed methods for image comparison. In this paper, we have extended the concept of image database to the set of frames acquired following wireless capsule endoscopy (from a unique patient). Then, we have used color and texture histograms to identify very similar images (considered duplicates) and removed one of them for each pair of two successive frames. The volume reduction represented an average of 20% from the initial data set, only by removing frames with very similar informational content.

Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy Versus Conventional Gastroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy overcame the restriction of passive capsule endoscopy movement, thus allowing an improved visualization of the gastrointestinal lumen, where other imaging studies seem to be unhelpful. The aim of this study is to systematically review the performance of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy and evaluate its potential as a less invasive diagnostic method in the detection of gastric lesions.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scopus, Who Global Health Library (GHL), Virtual Health Library (VHL), Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science databases. Proportion meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity of magnetically controlled capsuled endoscopy in the detection of gastrointestinal lesions.

RESULTS

Among the 3026 studies that were initially assessed, 7 studies were finally included, with a total of 916 patients and 745 gastric lesions. The mean capsule endoscopy examination time was 21.92±8.87 minutes. The pooled overall sensitivity of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI), 84%-89%]. Subgroup analysis showed that the sensitivity of identifying gastric ulcers was 82% (95% CI: 71%-89%), gastric polyps was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%), and gastric erosions was 95% (95% CI: 86%-98%). In general, magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy was well tolerated by the participants with minimal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy demonstrated an acceptable sensitivity of identifying gastric lesions. Further prospective comparative studies are needed to identify the risks and benefits of this new technique, as well as to determine its role as a replacement for conventional gastroscopy.

Examination of Entire Gastrointestinal Tract: A Perspective of Mouth to Anus (M2A) Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is the only non-invasive diagnostic tool that enables the direct visualization of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Even though CE was initially developed for small-bowel investigation, its clinical application is expanding, and technological advances continue. The final iteration of CE will be a mouth to anus (M2A) capsule that investigates the entire GI tract by the ingestion of a single capsule. This narrative review describes the current developmental status of CE and discusses the possibility of realizing an M2A capsule and what needs to be overcome in the future.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

The Role of Video Capsule Endoscopy in Liver Disease

In the setting of chronic liver disease, capsule endoscopy is safe and well tolerated, making it an appealing diagnostic procedure. It is used mainly for the surveillance of esophageal varices, investigation of anemia, and exploration of the small bowel for complications of portal hypertension. Capsule endoscopy is recognized as a viable alternative in patients unable or unwilling to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for investigations of esophageal varices. In evaluating the small bowel of patients with liver disease and unexplained anemia, capsule endoscopy increases recognition of mucosal abnormalities, although their clinical significance is often unclear.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Capsule endoscopy - Recent developments and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is an established modality in the diagnostic algorithm of small bowel (SB) pathology. Its use has expanded for investigation of upper and lower gastrointestinal diseases with similar prototypes.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the role and recent advances of CE, as a non-invasive investigative tool.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of upper gastrointestinal CE is useful in patients who require surveillance for varices particularly in the current era of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also shown high accuracy in the detection of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients presenting with a suspicion of hemorrhage. Findings on CE help to guide further management by device-assisted enteroscopy. The data on colon CE suggest comparable diagnostic accuracy to colonoscopy for polyp detection; however, more evidence is required in the high-risk group. Crohn's CE has become an integral part of the management of patients with Crohn's disease offering a comparative assessment tool post escalation of therapy. Artificial intelligence within CE has demonstrated similar if not better diagnostic yield compared to the human with a significantly shorter reading time. Artificial intelligence is likely to be in-built within CE reading platforms over the next few years minimizing reporting time and human error.

One-stop shop for variceal surveillance: integration of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy into the routine clinic visit

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic appearance of oesophageal varices determines the need for prophylaxis. However, as the point prevalence of varices is low (25%), the majority of surveillance endoscopies are unnecessary and costly. Narrow diameter, ultrathin (UT) endoscopes are more tolerable than conventional upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopes and can be used without sedation. We hypothesised that unsedated UT endoscopy for variceal surveillance could be implemented during the routine outpatient clinic visit allowing accurate diagnosis of varices and the timely provision of prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis awaiting surveillance endoscopy were identified. UT endoscopy was scheduled during routine clinic review at the same time as ultrasound surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. UGI endoscopy was performed unsedated using the E.G Scan II disposable endoscope. Varices were graded using the modified Paquet classification. Video recordings of procedures were reviewed by blinded assessors and agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

40 patients (80% male) underwent unsedated UT endoscopy. All procedures were successful and tolerated well in 98% of cases. Median procedure time was 2 min (IQR 1-3). Varices were found in 37.5% (17.5% grade 1 and 20% grade 2). Patients with grade 2 varices were prescribed non-selective beta blockers at the clinic appointment. Kappa statistic for the finding of any varices was 0.636 (p=0.001) and 0.8-1.0 for diagnosis of grade 2 varices (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient unsedated ultrathin endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis is accurate, safe and feasible. This integrative care model is convenient, particularly for regional communities, and is likely to result in significant cost savings associated with variceal surveillance.

Noninvasive scores for the prediction of esophageal varices and risk stratification in patients with cirrhosis

The primary purpose of variceal screening in patients with cirrhosis is to detect gastroesophageal varices at high risk of hemorrhage and implement preventative intervention(s). It was previously recommended that all patients with cirrhosis undergo initial and periodic longitudinal variceal screening via upper endoscopy. However, there has been growing interest and methods to identify patients with cirrhosis who may not have clinically significant portal hypertension and therefore be unlikely to have varices requiring intervention or benefit from upper endoscopy. Because the population of patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease continues to grow, it is neither beneficial nor cost-effective to perform endoscopic variceal screening in all patients. Therefore, there is ongoing research into the development of methods to non-invasively risk stratify patients with cirrhosis for the presence of high-risk esophageal varices and effectively limit the population that undergoes endoscopic variceal screening. This is particularly important and timely in light of increasing healthcare reform and barriers to healthcare. In this review, we discuss and compare, with respect to test characteristics and clinical applicability, the available methods used to non-invasively predict the presence of esophageal varices.

Beyond the scope and the glue: update on evaluation and management of gastric varices

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.

Better view by detachable string magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy for esophageal observation: a retrospective comparative study

Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) system has been used to screen gastric lesions. However, the visualization performance of MCE in the esophagus has not been investigated systematically. String method improved the ability of capsule endoscopy (CE) for esophageal observing; however, the string attachment is complicated and cannot be detached with the CE inside the esophagus. We used a modified string, called detachable string attached to MCE. The aim of the study was to compare the observation performance of MCE with and without the detachable string. A total of 238 participants with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and a healthy check who refused esophagogastroduodenoscopy examination were retrospectively divided into the detachable string MCE group and the MCE alone group from June 2016 to May 2018. A suction cap with a thin, hollow string was attached to the MCE system in the detachable string group. Circumferential visualization of the esophagus including the upper, middle, and lower esophagus and Z-line, and esophageal focal lesion, as well as the recording time, safety and tolerability of the procedure, were assessed. The circumferential visualization of the upper, middle, and lower esophagus and Z-line was more efficient in the detachable string MCE group than in the MCE alone group (P < 0.001). In all, 31 esophageal lesions were detected in the detachable string MCE group, which was more than that in the MCE alone group (10, P < 0.001). The mean recording time was 305 seconds in the string MCE group, which was longer than that in the MCE alone group (48.5 seconds, P < 0.001). In seven participants (6.1%) in the detachable string MCE group, the capsule could not be separated from the string. Detachable string MCE showed better performance in terms of observation of the esophagus. Detachable string MCE can be used to screen for esophageal diseases as an alternative method in the future.

Diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal varices using a magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy system

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) potentially offers a comfortable, patient friendly, and community-based alternative to gastroscopy (EGD). This pilot study aims to explore whether this approach can be used to accurately diagnose Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal varices.

METHOD

The MiroCam Navi capsule system was used to examine the upper GI tract in patients due to undergo a clinically indicated EGD. A total of 50 participants were enrolled: 34 had known pathology (17 BE, 17 esophageal varices [EV]) and 16 controls. Patients underwent the MACE procedure with the operator blinded to the indication and any previous endoscopic diagnoses. The subsequent EGD was performed by an endoscopist blinded to the MACE findings. Diagnostic yield, comfort, and patient preference between the 2 modalities were compared.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, the male/female ratio was 2.1:1, the mean body mass index was 29.5 kg/m², and the average chest measurement was 105.3 cm. Forty-seven patients underwent both procedures; 3 patients were unable to swallow the capsule. With the use of the magnet, it was possible to hold the capsule within the esophagus for a mean duration of 190 seconds and up to a maximum of 634 seconds. A correct real-time MACE diagnosis was made in 11 of 15 patients with EV (sensitivity 73.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 44.9%-92.2%] and specificity 100% [95% CI, 89.1%-100%]) and 15 of 16 patients with BE (sensitivity 93.8% [95% CI, 69.8%-99.8%] and specificity of 100% [95% CI, 88.8%-100%]). MACE was considered more comfortable than conventional endoscopy (P < .0001); the mean score was 9.2 for MACE compared with 6.7 for EGD when assessed on a 10-point scale. No MACE- or EGD-related adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrates that MACE is both safe and well tolerated by patients. Accuracy for the diagnosis of BE was high, and therefore MACE may have a role in screening for this condition. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02852161.).

Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy in Children and Young Adults With Portal Hypertension

OBJECTIVES

Variceal hemorrhage (VH) is a serious complication of portal hypertension (PH). We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and clinical impact of esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) in pediatric and young adult patients with known or suspected PH.

METHODS

Children and young adults with PH at Boston Children's Hospital (2005-2017) were offered ECE for variceal screening or surveillance. Patient histories, ECE findings, and clinical outcomes were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-nine ECE studies were performed in 98 patients (57.1% male patients) using 3 ECE devices for variceal screening (66.5%) or surveillance (33.5%). Three readers interpreted the studies (88.3%, 10.3%, and 1.4%, respectively). Median age was 16 years (IQR 13.7-18.5). One hundred and three ECE studies involved patients <18 years (69.1%). Fifteen patients (29 ECE studies) had a gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (GIB) history, 5 in the preceding 12 months.Sixty-two ECE studies (44.9%) detected varices: 59 esophageal (40 small, 19 medium/large), 17 gastric, 6 duodenal. Other findings included: portal gastropathy (25, 18.1%), esophagitis (20, 14.5%), ulcers (5, 3.6%), erosions (31, 22.5%), heterotopic tissue (13, 9.4%), blood flecks (23, 16.7%), and mucosal scars (17, 12.3%). There were 2 transient capsule retentions and no major adverse events.ECE led to follow-up EGD in 11 (7 variceal banding) and medication initiation in 12 (4 proton-pump inhibitor, 7 nonselective beta blocker, 2 other) cases. Four patients had GIB within 12 months of ECE.

CONCLUSION

ECE is a feasible alternative to EGD for screening and surveillance of esophageal varices in children and young adults.

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

Miniature gastrointestinal endoscopy: Now and the future

Since its original application, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has undergone many innovative transformations aimed at expanding the scope, safety, accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of this area of clinical practice. One method of achieving this has been to reduce the caliber of endoscopic devices. We propose the collective term “Miniature GI Endoscopy”. In this Opinion Review, the innovations in this field are explored and discussed. The progress and clinical use of the three main areas of miniature GI endoscopy (ultrathin endoscopy, wireless endoscopy and scanning fiber endoscopy) are described. The opportunities presented by these technologies are set out in a clinical context, as are their current limitations. Many of the positive aspects of miniature endoscopy are clear, in that smaller devices provide access to potentially all of the alimentary canal, while conferring high patient acceptability. This must be balanced with the costs of new technologies and recognition of device specific challenges. Perspectives on future application are also considered and the efforts being made to bring new innovations to a clinical platform are outlined. Current devices demonstrate that miniature GI endoscopy has a valuable place in investigation of symptoms, therapeutic intervention and screening. Newer technologies give promise that the potential for enhancing the investigation and management of GI complaints is significant.

Update on the management of gastrointestinal varices

Cirrhosis of liver is a major problem in the western world. Portal hypertension is a complication of cirrhosis and can lead to a myriad of pathology of which include the development of porto-systemic collaterals. Gastrointestinal varices are dilated submucosal veins, which often develop at sites near the formation of gastroesophageal collateral circulation. The incidence of varices is on the rise due to alcohol and obesity. The most significant complication of portal hypertension is life-threatening bleeding from gastrointestinal varices, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In addition, this can cause a significant burden on the health care facility. Gastrointestinal varices can happen in esophagus, stomach or ectopic varices. There has been considerable progress made in the understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology and etiology of portal hypertension. Despite the development of endoscopic and medical treatments, early mortality due to variceal bleeding remains high due to significant illness of the patient. Recurrent variceal bleed is common and in some cases, there is refractory variceal bleed. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of gastrointestinal varices with an emphasis on endoscopic interventions, strategies to handle refractory variceal bleed and newer endoscopic treatment modalities. Early treatment and improved endoscopic techniques can help in improving morbidity and mortality.

Duodenal Varix Rupture - A Rare Cause of Fatal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Duodenal varices are a rare complication of portal hypertension; with cirrhosis being the most common cause. Reports regarding the disease prognosis and natural history are limited. In addition to the diagnostic difficulty, ectopic duodenal varices pose a significant therapeutic challenge owing to the lack of specific management guidelines. Given the high risk of rupture, they can have devastating clinical outcomes. Rupture typically presents as a gastrointestinal hemorrhage and requires emergent interventions. We present a case of duodenal varix seen on upper endoscopy in a patient with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, together with review of the literature outlining the current understanding of this disease entity. We also highlight the pathogenetic mechanisms as well as the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this potentially fatal disease.

Current and Future Use of Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy can be a diagnostic option for patients with esophageal diseases who cannot tolerate esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Functional modifications of the capsule allow for thorough examination of the esophagus. Esophageal capsule endoscopy has so farfailed to show sufficient performance to justify the replacement of traditional endoscopy for the diagnosis of esophageal diseasesbecause the esophagus has a short transit time and common pathologies appear near the esophagogastric junction. However,technological improvements are being introduced to overcome the limitations of capsule endoscopy, which is expected to become agood alternative to conventional endoscopy.

Νon-invasive screening for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Esophageal varices are one of the main complications of liver cirrhosis. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of esophageal varices. Many less invasive methods for screening of varices have been investigated and the most recent Baveno VI guidelines suggest that endoscopy is not necessary in patients with liver stiffness <20 kPa and platelets >150,000/μL. A critical review of the literature was performed concerning non-invasive or minimally invasive methods of screening for esophageal varices. Liver and spleen elastography, imaging methods including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound, laboratory tests and capsule endoscopy are discussed. The accuracy of each method, and its advantages and limitations compared to endoscopy are analyzed. There are data to support the Baveno VI guidelines, but there is still a lack of large prospective studies and low specificity has been reported for the liver stiffness and platelet count combination. Spleen elastography has shown promising results, as there are data to support its superiority to liver elastography, but it needs further assessment. Computed tomography has shown high diagnostic accuracy and can be part of the diagnostic work up of cirrhotic patients in the future, including screening for varices.

The noninvasive diagnosis of esophageal varices and its application in clinical practice

Here, we review recent improvements made to different noninvasive tests used for the diagnosis of esophageal varices (EV) in the light of the recent Baveno VI recommendation and with an emphasis on clinical application. Like for fibrosis tests, these noninvasive EV tests can be classified as direct markers when they provide a visualization of EV (including all imaging procedures like endoscopy or radiology) and as indirect markers when they do not (blood markers or elastometry). Clinical descriptors expressed as percentages, especially the spared endoscopy rate and the missed high-risk esophageal varices (HREV) rate, are more eloquent in this setting than classical statistical descriptors like accuracy. Single biomarkers are insufficient, generally due to a missed HREV rate exceeding the acceptable limit of 5% indicated in the Baveno VI consensus. Thus, biomarker combinations are currently garnering the most interest. The Baveno VI recommendation states that in alcoholic and viral cirrhoses, screening endoscopy can be safely set aside for patients with liver stiffness<20kPa and platelets>150G/L. The Baveno rule's mean missed HREV rate is<5% but its spared endoscopy rate is<20%. New combinations or stepwise algorithms show promise but must be validated. Going forward, the Baveno rule provides a simple noninvasive method to rule out HREV in clinical practice but the need for further research continues. The noninvasive diagnosis of HREV will be significantly improved by new, simple and affordable combinations.

Efficacy of capsule endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal lesions and small bowel abnormalities: a study protocol for prospective interventional study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The role of capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) has yet to be established; however, it is likely that it will remain a valuable diagnostic modality in several groups of patients with LC. The primary aims of the current prospective interventional study are to examine the prevalence for small bowel lesions and transit time of CE in the gastrointestinal tract in patients with LC with oesophageal varices (EVs) requiring endoscopic therapies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The current study will be a single-centre prospective interventional study. Our study participants are LC subjects with portal hypertension who were determined to be necessary for prophylactic endoscopic therapies for EVs. From the view point of safety, patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or fistula or those being suspected of having gastrointestinal obstruction or fistula will be excluded from our study. Patients with implanted medical devices will be also excluded. CE will be performed prior to prophylactic endoscopic therapies in the same hospitalisation and relevant images will be analysed after 8 hours by expert endoscopists. This study will continue to recruit until 50 participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Hyogo College of Medicine (approval no. 2680). The study protocol, informed assent form and other submitted files were reviewed and acknowledged. Final data will be publicly scattered regardless of the study results. A report releasing study results will be submitted for publication in a suitable journal after being finished in data collection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000028433 (https://upload.umin.ac.jp/).

Recent advances in the management of variceal bleeding

Acute haemorrhage from ruptured gastroesophageal varices is perhaps the most serious consequence of uncontrolled portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. It represents a medical emergency and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. In those who survive the initial bleeding event, the risks of further bleeding and other decompensated events remain high. The past 30 years have seen a slow evolution of management strategies that have greatly improved the chances of surviving a variceal haemorrhage. Liver cirrhosis is a multi-staged pathological process and we are moving away from a one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach. Instead there is an increasing recognition that a more nuanced approach will yield optimal survival for patients. This approach seeks to risk stratify patients according to their disease stage. The exact type and timing of treatment offered can then be varied to suit individual patients. At the same time, the toolbox of available therapy is expanding and there is a continual stream of emerging evidence to support the use of endoscopic and pharmacological therapies. In this review, we present a summary of the treatment options for a variety of different clinical scenarios and for when there is failure to control bleeding. We have conducted a detailed literature review and presented up-to-date evidence from either primary randomized-controlled trials or meta-analyses that support current treatment algorithms.