Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Primary Prophylaxis for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children With Biliary Atresia and Portal Hypertension Candidates for Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Cirrhosis for biliary atresia (BA) is associated with risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GB) from gastroesophageal varices due to portal hypertension. Primary prophylaxis of GB is controversial in children who are candidates for liver transplantation (LT). The aim of the study was to define the management of gastroesophageal varices and to identify the benefit of primary prophylaxis for GB in BA children waiting for LT.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study including all BA children listed for LT in 2008-2016. Clinical, endoscopical, and biochemical data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 82 children, 50 (61%) did not receive primary prophylaxis and did not present any episode of bleeding, 16 (19.5%) underwent primary prophylaxis, and 16 (19.5%) presented spontaneous GB and received secondary prophylaxis. Children without primary prophylaxis and GB were younger than patients with primary prophylaxis and those with GB (7.7 years [range, 4.1-37.9 years] vs 11.2 years [range, 5.1-43 years]; P = .03 vs 10.7 years [range, 6.9-39.9 years], respectively; P = .004). Seventy-five percent of GB occurred in children older than 8 months. Fifteen (93.8%) children with GB presented esophageal varices (grade III = 10 [62.5%]) and 10 (62.5%) required endoscopic treatments, consisting mainly of sclerotherapy. Median time to LT was similar for children with or without bleeding (2 months [range, 0-17.7 months] vs 2.2 months [0-17.9 months], respectively; P = .89). After 45.5 months (range, 13.7-105.5 months) of follow-up, the overall patient survival was 97.6%. At the intention-to-treat analysis, the survival rate was 100% for patients without bleeding episode and 87.5% for children with GB (P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the risk of GB being not clinically predictable in children with BA waiting for LT, our experience suggests that primary prophylaxis of GB might be unnecessary in children younger than 6 months, while it should be considered in older children. Thus, the occurrence of GB does not delay the timing of transplantation.

Effect of dexmedetomidine in the prophylactic endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for oesophageal varices: a study protocol for prospective interventional study

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a novel, highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist that elicits sedative, amnestic, sympatholytic and analgesic effects in patients. Several Japanese investigators have reported the clinical usefulness of DEX for sedation in endoscopic therapies for gastrointestinal malignancies; however, there have been limited data regarding the usefulness and safety of DEX for sedation during endoscopic procedures for oesophageal varices (OVs), such as endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS). In this prospective, single-arm interventional study, we aimed to elucidate these issues.

Methods

Patients who require two or more sessions of prophylactic EIS for the treatment of OVs will be enrolled in this prospective interventional study. EIS procedures include two methods: (1) sedation during endoscopic procedures will be performed using conventional methods (pentazocine (PNZ) and midazolam (MDZ)), and (2) sedation during endoscopic procedures will be performed using PNZ, low-dose MDZ and DEX. These two methods were randomly assigned in the first and second EIS. The effect and safety of these two procedures with respect to patient sedation are to be compared with the degree of sedation evaluated using the Bispectral Index monitoring system (Aspect Medical Systems, Norwood, Massachusetts, USA).

Ethics and dissemination

This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Hyogo College of Medicine (approval no. 2324). The authors are committed to publishing the study results as widely as possible in peer-reviewed journals, and to ensuring that appropriate recognition is provided to everyone who is working on this study.

Trial registration number

UMIN000026688; Pre-results.