Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Sclerotherapy vs Ligation in the Long-Term Management of Medium Esophageal Varices: A Randomized Trial

Application of a virtual ruler in predicting postoperative rebleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal variceal diameter (EVD) is one of the most important predictors of variceal bleeding, as well as an important predictor of the effectiveness of endoscopic esophageal varices (EV) treatments. EVD is currently determined using visual inspection by endoscopic operators, meaning that results can vary widely between operators. This approach also means that cases unsuitable for endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) can be complicated by postoperative hemorrhage. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the value of a virtual ruler (VR) in predicting rebleeding after the endoscopic treatment of EV in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We enrolled 588 patients with cirrhosis and EV (with and without gastric varices), who were treated with EVL or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy across 3 hospitals. We categorized participants into 2 groups, a nonbleeding group and a rebleeding group, according to whether they bled again after surgery. We compared basic demographic and clinical data, laboratory tests, EVD, and treatment modalities between the 2 groups. Potential risk factors for rebleeding after EV operations were analyzed using univariate and multivariable regression analyses. Correlations between esophageal variceal rebleeding and EVD were also analyzed, as was the consistency between visual EVD estimates and EVD measured using a VR.

RESULTS

Child-Pugh class, albumin (ALB) levels, prothrombin time (PT), EVD (visual value), EVD (VR value), red sign, and the number of laps used for EVL showed statistically significant differences between the rebleeding and nonbleeding groups. Univariate regression analysis showed that Child-Pugh classification, ALB levels, PT, EVD (VR value), and red sign were strongly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of EV, whereas multivariable regression analysis showed that Child-Pugh classification, ALB levels, and EVD (VR value) were predictive factors for rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of EV. Differences between visual EVD estimates and VR EVD measurements were large. (Kappa value: 0.391, P < .001). However, the 2 methods showed high agreement for EVD >1 cm (87/95) CONCLUSION: EVD (VR value) can more accurately predict rebleeding rates. It can also provide a basis for selecting appropriate endoscopic treatment modalities for EV and effectively circumvent postoperative EV rebleeding.

Evaluation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and modified sclerotherapy in preventing rebleeding of esophageal and gastric varices

Esophageal and gastric varices are complications of decompensated portal hypertension due to cirrhosis, and gastrointestinal bleeding and can seriously trigger major bleeding and crisis life. Seriously endangers patients' physical and mental health and attracts great attention in the clinic. To compare the efficacy and safety of MES (combined with lauromacrogol and tissue adhesive) and TIPS in the treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. The 62 cases of esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the MES group and TIPS group according to the treatment method. The rebleeding rate, complications, 2-year birth rate, treatment cost, and hospitalization time within 2 years after operation were compared between the two groups. Among the 62 patients, there were 32 in the MES group and 30 in the TIPS group. The rebleeding rate within 1 year after operation in the MES group was higher than that in the TIPS group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The rebleeding rate within 2 years after operation in the MES group was 40.63%, significantly higher than 13.33% in the TIPS group (P < 0. 05). In the MES group, the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy after the operation was 9.38%, significantly lower than 33.33% in TIPS group (P < 0. 05). The survival rate within 2 years after operation in MES group (81.25%) and TIPS group (83.33), the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in hospital stay between the MES group and TIPS group (P > 0.05). The treatment cost of the MES group was lower than that of the TIPS group (P < 0.05). MES is more suitable for development and promotion in grass-roots hospitals, but TIPS treatment should be carried out as soon as possible for patients with poor efficacy of endoscopic treatment.

Esophageal variceal ligation plus sclerotherapy vs. ligation alone for the treatment of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) vs. EVL combined with endoscopic injection sclerosis (EIS) in the therapy of esophageal varices.

METHODS

Patients from January 2017 to August 2021 who received EVL alone (control group) or EVL plus EIS (intervention group) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Efficacy, including rebleeding (clinically hematemesis or melena, confirmed by endoscopy as esophagogastric varices bleeding), variceal recurrence rate (the presence of esophagogastric varices which is needed to be treated again) the number of sessions performed to complete eradication of varices, and safety (adverse events) were compared. The variceal recurrence-associated factors were derived by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The variceal recurrence and rebleeding rate in the intervention group showed significantly lower than the control group (2.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.006 and 20.7% vs 37.5%, P = 0.029, P = 0.006, respectively, in the 12-month follow-up). The adverse events (fever, chest pain, swallowing, and esophageal stricture) showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Further research showed that the efficacy of the intervention group was better than the control group only achieved in prophylactically endoscopic treatment patients. The diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices co-exist showed significant effects on variceal recurrence in intervention group [odds ratio (OR) = 15.856; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.709-160.143; P = 0.016 and OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.42-20.028; P = 0.021; respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention group may obtain lower recurrence, rebleeding rate, and fewer sessions performed to complete eradication of varices (number of sessions) and similar incidence of adverse events, especially for prophylactically treatment. Among the intervention group, the diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices were closely associated with variceal recurrence.

Efficient Initial Eradication of Large Esophageal Varices by Balloon-compression Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND

The management of large esophageal varices (EVs) remains challenging because of the difficulty of endoscopic variceal ligation and fatal post-endoscopic variceal ligation bleeding ulcers. The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) in the treatment of large EVs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 105 patients with cirrhosis exhibiting large EVs (64 in the bc-EIS group and 41 in the EIS group). Primary outcomes included the initial rate of variceal eradication and intraoperative bleeding signs. Secondary outcomes included incidences of rebleeding, mortality, complications, and optimal time of balloon-compression (bc).

RESULTS

The initial rate of variceal eradication in the bc-EIS group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (46.9 vs. 24.4%; P=0.021). The incidence of intraoperative bleeding, which was represented as oozing and spurting, in the bc-EIS group was markedly lower than that in the EIS group (43.8 vs. 61.0% and 9.4 vs. 39.0%, respectively; P=0.043). Patients in the bc-EIS group showed a significantly lower incidence of rebleeding (0.0 vs. 17.1%; P=0.001). However, no significant difference in mortality rate was observed between different groups. Chest pain or discomfort tended to be more common in the EIS group than in the bc-EIS group (58.5 vs. 17.2%; P=0.001). The cut-off value of 11.5-minutes appeared to have a maximum combined sensitivity and specificity of 80.0% and 58.8%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.708 (95% confidence interval =0.576-0.839; P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

bc-EIS could achieve a higher variceal eradication rate and milder intraoperative bleeding signs in large EVs. Furthermore, 11.5-minutes appeared to be the optimal compression time in bc-EIS.