SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF EUS-GUIDED COIL PLUS CYANOACRYLATE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CYANOACRYLATE TECHNIQUE IN THE TREATMENT OF GASTRIC VARICES: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Cyanoacrylate injection assisted by endosonographic mini-probe in the management of gastric varices: a single-center, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gastric varices (GV) pose the potential risk of massive bleeding. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided real-time delivery of adhesives and devices has emerged as a promising therapeutic modality for GV but was limited in its generalizability due to the unavailability and lack of expertise of linear echoendoscopy. Therefore, we utilized the more readily available EUS mini-probe (EMP) in assisting cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection in the management of GV.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary medical center. One hundred and thirty-three eligible patients were divided into three groups based on the treatment modalities including EMP-guided CYA injection via a dual-channel gastroscope (EMP-D group), EMP-guided injection via a single-channel gastroscope (EMP-S group) and direct endoscopic injection (DEI group). The clinical characteristics, procedural parameters, outcomes, adverse events and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

An overall statistical significance was achieved in the number of puncture site (p < 0.001), the number of instant blood return upon puncture (p = 0.001), cyanoacrylate dose (p = 0.004), late rebleeding rate (p = 0.018), post-injection ulcer (p = 0.005), and non-rebleeding interval (p = 0.026) among the three groups. Patients in EMP-D group exhibited a lower rate of post-injection ulcer than those in DEI group (p = 0.009). Procedural time of EMP-D was shorter than that of EMP-S (p < 0.001). Less amount of cyanoacrylate was needed per reinjection session in EMP-D than in DEI (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

EMP-guided cyanoacrylate injection exhibited superior effectiveness and safety to DEI, while use of the dual-channel gastroscope further enhanced the precision and efficiency.

Left-sided portal hypertension: what an interventional radiologist can offer?

Left-sided portal hypertension (LPH) refers to increased splenic venous pressure caused by splenic vein stenosis or occlusion. Pancreatitis is the leading cause of LPH. Typically, LPH remains asymptomatic, but it can lead to life-threatening hemorrhage from ruptured fundal varices in about 10% of patients. Further, it may be complicated by hypersplenism. Interventional radiology plays an essential role in LPH patients with failed endoscopic treatment. Variceal embolization is an effective salvage measure in bleeding gastric varices, but it carries a risk of recurrence and worsening of hypersplenism. Considering the pathophysiology, splenic vein recanalization (SVR) appears to be the best treatment; nevertheless, its lower technical success rate limits its utility only to a subgroup of LPH patients. Partial splenic embolization (PSE), a non-surgical alternative to splenectomy, reduces the splenic volume and venous outflow, thereby lowering variceal pressure. PSE is technically easier, which may explain its widespread use. Nonetheless, PSE can be complicated by life-threatening sepsis and portal vein thrombosis. Despite all attempts, some LPH patients eventually require a splenectomy. Importantly, the choice of therapy requires multidisciplinary discussion and is often influenced by availability, expertise, and clinical context. This article discusses various interventional strategies for managing LPH with the available evidence. KEY POINTS: Question Pressure within the main portal vein is normal in left-sided portal hypertension; thus, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is ineffective. Findings Splenic vein stent placement can restore hepatopetal splenic blood flow and decompress splenic venous pressure. Clinical relevance Partial splenic embolization (PSE) is the most widely used interventional approach to manage left-sided portal hypertension-related complications.

Endohepatology: Applications in Liver Transplant

The term "endohepatology" was coined over the last 15 years to describe the integration of interventional endoscopy and hepatology for the management of patients with chronic liver disease. In this article, we will review the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among liver transplantation candidates and recipients.

Advances in Endo-Hepatology: The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Management of Portal Hypertension

Portal hypertension (PH) is a complication of advanced liver diseases, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, often leading to unfavorable outcomes. Endo-hepatology, particularly endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has revolutionized the assessment of PH. Notably, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) enables measurement of portal and hepatic venous pressures, offering diagnostic precision for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic forms of PH, including porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD). EUS-based assessment of PH in advanced liver disease can refine diagnostic workup and prognostication, supporting therapeutic decisions. Additionally, EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) achieves high-quality histological samples with fewer complications compared to percutaneous techniques, enabling thorough evaluation of chronic liver diseases and vascular abnormalities. EUS-shear wave elastography (EUS-SWE) further refines stiffness measurements where standard imaging fails. Moreover, EUS plays a major role in controlling variceal hemorrhage, a severe PH complication. EUS-guided coil and cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices demonstrate a great efficacy, often surpassing conventional endoscopy. Similarly, EUS-based identification and treatment of perforator vessels feeding esophageal varices reduce rebleeding risks, particularly in challenging patients. The combination of these state-of-the-art interventions supports a "one-stop strategy", integrating variceal screening, biopsy, and portal pressure measurement within a single procedure. Despite these advancements, refinements in sedation protocols, patient selection, and cost-effectiveness data are necessary. While noninvasive tools remain central in guidelines, EUS-based methods continue to expand their role, especially in complex cases. This review summarizes the applications and impact of EUS in evaluating PH, emphasizing its importance in contemporary hepatology and its potential as a pivotal diagnostic modality in cirrhosis complicated by PH.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of isolated gastric varices

In this letter we comment on the article by Zhang et al published in the recent issue of the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2024. We focus specifically on the management of gastric varices (GV), which is a significant consequence of portal hypertension, is currently advised to include beta-blocker therapy for primary prophylaxis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for secondary prophylaxis or active bleeding. Although it has been studied, direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate glue has limitations, such as the inability to fully characterize GV endoscopically and the potential for distant glue embolism. In order to achieve this, endoscopic ultrasound has been used to support GV characterization, real-time therapy imaging, and Doppler obliteration verification.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection versus cyanoacrylate injection alone for gastric varices: a randomized comparative study

BACKGROUND

Bleeding from gastric varices is life-threatening, with significant rebleeding risk despite standard cyanoacrylate glue injection therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection (Coil+CYA) compared with EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection alone (CYA) for the treatment of gastric varices.

METHODS

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center in India, using a single-blinded, prospective, and parallel-group randomized design. A total of 50 patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to Coil+CYA or CYA. The primary outcome was clinical success (i.e. variceal obliteration). Secondary outcomes involved technical success, gastric variceal recurrence during follow-up, rebleeding episodes, reintervention, and survival.

RESULTS

Post-intervention, gastric variceal obliteration assessed by EUS was higher in the Coil+CYA group (100% vs. 92.3%; P = 0.49), with both groups achieving 100% technical success. Rebleeding episodes during 0-12 and 12-24 weeks were comparable in the two groups. At 12 weeks, on EUS, variceal reappearance was less common in the Coil+CYA group (12.5% vs. 19.2%; P = 0.70). Significantly fewer reinterventions were needed in the Coil+CYA group (20.8% vs. 53.8%; P = 0.03). The time to reintervention was significantly longer in the Coil+CYA group (P = 0.01), and the survival time was also longer (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection achieved superior clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention and resulting in improved survival compared with cyanoacrylate injection alone.

EUS-guided coiling plus glue injection compared with endoscopic glue injection alone in endoscopic treatment for gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided coil plus glue injection has emerged as a safe and effective modality for gastric varices (GVs). Very few studies have compared EUS embolization with the direct endoscopic glue injection (EGI) technique for its safety and effectiveness. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of EUS-guided coil plus glue injection versus EGI.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that compared EUS and EGI for GVs, and 1454 articles were screened following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Endpoints were pulmonary embolism, recurrent bleeding rate, reintervention rate, technical success, abdominal pain, and mortality rate. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used for binary endpoints. Heterogeneity was evaluated through Cochrane's Q statistic and Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistic. Significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

We included 6 studies with 445 patients treated for GVs. Mean patient age was 49 years, and 43% were women. EUS was associated with a reduction in recurrent bleeding rate (OR, .22; 95% CI, .11-.45; P < .001; I2 = 0) and reintervention rate (OR, .29; 95% CI, .09-.89; P = .03; I2 = 49%) compared with EGI. There were no differences between groups in pulmonary embolism (OR, .34; 95% CI, .10-1.18; P = .09; I2 = 0%), mortality rate (OR, .78; 95% CI, .28-2.13; P = .63; I2 = 0%), technical success (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, .60-20.49; P = .16; I2 = 0%), fever (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, .42-5.21 days; P = .5; I2 = 0%), and abdominal pain (OR, .96; 95% CI, .31-2.95; P = .94; I2 = 32%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GVs, EUS-guided coil plus glue injection is associated with lower recurrent bleeding and reintervention rates than EGI with no difference in pulmonary embolization rate, abdominal pain, technical success, and mortality rate.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies in the treatment of gastric varices: An in-depth examination of associated adverse events

The Baveno VII consensus, released in 2023, recommends that the endoscopic treatment of choice for managing bleeding gastric varices (GV) is endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment, specifically EUS-guided cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue injection. This approach has been endorsed due to its efficacy in controlling bleeding while reducing rebleeding rates, compared to other endoscopic techniques. Despite its efficacy, CYA injection for GV has been linked to rare but serious adverse events, such as glue embolization leading to pulmonary embolism, infection/bacteremia, splenic infarction, intra-procedural and post-procedural complications. The technique for endoscopic obliteration of GV was subsequently refined using EUS guidance, aiming to more accurately direct the injection into the varix, reduce the volume of injected glue, target the perforating vein when possible, and confirm obliteration of GV via Doppler examination.

III BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, endoscopic ultrasound has developed from a diagnostic tool to a platform for many therapeutic interventions. Various technological advancements have emerged since the last Brazilian Consensus, demanding a review and update of the recommendations based on the best scientific evidence.

METHODS

A group of 32 renowned echoendoscopists selected eight relevant topics to be discussed to generate clinical questions. After that, a literature review was conducted to answer these questions based on the most updated evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-three statements were formulated and voted on by the experts to reach a consensus. The Oxford System was used to grade the level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

There is mo-derate evidence to support that the needle shape, gauge, or aspiration technique does not influence the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. There is moderate evidence to support using EUS-TTNB of the cyst wall to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. There is little evidence to support the EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices. There is a high level of evidence to support that EUS-guided biliary drainage and ERCP present similar outcomes in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. There is a high level of evidence for using EUS to diagnose neoplastic pancreatic cysts and detect necrosis before indicating drainage. There is moderate evidence to support EUS-GE over duodenal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in patients with a life expectancy higher than 2 months. There is a high level of evidence to support the use of RFA in treating both functioning and non-functioning types of NET.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular interventions: A review (with videos)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a diagnostic to an interventional modality, allowing precise vascular access and therapy. EUS-guided vascular access of the portal vein has received increasing attention in recent years as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient directly measures the hepatic vein portal pressure gradient and is crucial for understanding of liver function and prognostication of liver disease. EUS facilitates the sampling of portal venous blood to obtain circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in pancreatobiliary malignancies. This technique aids in the diagnosis and staging of cancers. EUS-guided interventions have a substantial potential for diagnosing portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. EUS-guided coil and glue embolization have higher efficacy for the treatment of gastric varices than direct endoscopic glue. Pseudoaneurysm (PsA), a rare vascular complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, is typically managed with interventional radiology (IR)-guided embolization and surgery. EUS is increasingly used in specialized centers for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly for pseudoaneurysm-related bleeding. There is limited data on EUS-guided intervention for bleeding ectopic varices, rectal varices and Dieulafoy lesions, but it is becoming more widely accepted. In this extensive review, we evaluated both current and potential future applications of EUS-guided vascular interventions, including EUS-guided gastric variceal bleed therapy, rectal and ectopic varices, pseudoaneurysmal bleeding, splenic artery embolization, portal pressure gradient measurement, portal vein sampling for CTCs, fine needle aspiration of PVTT, intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, liver tumor ablation and EUS-guided cardiac intervention.

Endoscopic ultrasound in portal hypertension: navigating venous hemodynamics and treatment efficacy

Portal hypertension-related complications increase mortality in patients, irrespective of its etiology. Classically, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was used to assess the portal venous system and collaterals, considering size and hemodynamic parameters, which correlate with portal hypertension (PH) and related complications. Furthermore, therapeutic EUS guides treatment interventions, such as embolization of the gastric varices through coil placement and tissue adhesive injection, yielding encouraging clinical results. Recently, the direct measurement of portal pressure, emerging as an alternative to hepatic venous pressure gradient, has shown promise, and further research in this area is anticipated. In this review, we aimed to provide a detailed description of various possibilities for diagnosing vascular anatomy and hemodynamics in PH and actual knowledge on the EUS usefulness for PH vessel-related complications. Also, future promises for this field of endo-hepatology are discussed.

EUS-guided thrombin injection and coil implantation for gastric varices: feasibility, safety, and outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric varices (GVs) are reported in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension, and bleeding is often more severe and challenging than esophageal variceal bleeding. Data are limited on prophylaxis of GV bleeding or management in the acute setting, and different techniques are used. This study evaluated outcomes after EUS-guided placement of coils in combination with thrombin to manage GVs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with combination EUS-guided therapy with coils and thrombin between October 2015 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent 33 procedures for GV therapy; 16 of 20 (80%) had type 1 isolated GVs and 4 patients had type 2 gastroesophageal varices. The median follow-up was 842 days (interquartile range [IQR], 483-961). Seventeen patients (85%) had underlying cirrhosis, the most common etiologies being alcohol-related liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The median Child-Pugh score was 6 (IQR, 5-7). In 11 patients (55%), the indication was secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent bleeding; in 2 of 20 patients (10%), the bleeding was acute. Technical success was achieved in 19 patients (95%). During follow-up, the obliteration of flow within the varices was achieved in 17 patients (85%). The 6-week survival rate was 100%, and 2 adverse events, recurrent bleeding at day 5 and at day 37, were reported; both recurrent bleeding events were successfully managed endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided GV obliteration combining coil placement with thrombin, in our experience, was technically safe with good medium-term efficacy. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing different treatment strategies is desirable to understand options better.

Advances in the endoscopic management of gastric varices

This review provides an overview of the treatment options available for gastric varices (GV) with a focus on endoscopic methods. Various minimally invasive techniques, including endoscopic band ligation, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, can be applied to the treatment of GV. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection is now recognized as a first-line treatment for GV. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyanoacrylate injection combined with coils has shown good security and effectiveness. Thrombin injection therapy is a promising treatment, with a similar hemostasis rate to cyanoacrylate injection but with fewer serious complications. With the deepening understanding of the hemodynamics of the GV system, various treatment methods and their combination are gradually evaluated to provide patients with safer and more effective treatment options.

Risk Factors for Rebleeding After Endoscopic Injection of Cyanoacrylate Glue for Gastric Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding is a significant complication of endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate in gastric varices in cirrhotic patients.

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficiency of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection and summarized the risk factors for rebleeding.

METHODS

Databases were searched for articles published between January 2012 and December 2022. Studies evaluating the efficiency of endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate glue for gastric varices and the risk factors for rebleeding were included.

RESULTS

The final analysis included data from 24 studies. The hemostatic rates ranged from 65 to 100%. The pooled rate of gastric varices recurrence was 34% [95% CI 21-46, I2 = 61.4%], early rebleeding rate was 16% [95% CI 11-20, I2 = 37.4%], late rebleeding rate was 39% [95% CI 36-42, I2 = 90.9%], mild and moderate adverse events rate were 28% [95% CI 24-31, I2 = 91.6%], 3% [95% CI - 2 to 8, I2 = 15.3%], rebleeding-related mortality rate was 6% [95% CI 2-10, I2 = 0%], all-cause mortality rate was 17% [95% CI 12-22, I2 = 63.6%]. Independent risk factors for gastric variceal rebleeding included portal venous thrombosis, ascites, cyanoacrylate volume, fever/systemic inflammatory response syndrome, red Wale sign, previous history of variceal bleeding, active bleeding and paragastric veins. The use of proton pump inhibitors could be a protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection is an effective and safe treatment for gastric varices. Cirrhotic patients with the above risk factors may benefit from treatment aimed at reducing portal hypertension, antibiotic prophylaxis, and anticoagulation if they meet the indications.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In hepatology, the clinical use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has experienced a notable increase in recent times. These applications range from the diagnosis to the treatment of various liver diseases. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes the evidence for the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS in liver diseases.

AIM

To examine and summarize the current available evidence of the possible roles of the EUS in making a suitable diagnosis in liver diseases as well as the therapeutic accuracy and efficacy.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were extensively searched until October 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In addition, statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

RESULTS

Overall, 45 articles on EUS were included (28 on diagnostic role and 17 on therapeutic role). Pooled analysis demonstrated that EUS diagnostic tests had an accuracy of 92.4% for focal liver lesions (FLL) and 96.6% for parenchymal liver diseases. EUS-guided liver biopsies with either fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy had low complication rates when sampling FLL and parenchymal liver diseases (3.1% and 8.7%, respectively). Analysis of data from four studies showed that EUS-guided liver abscess had high clinical (90.7%) and technical success (90.7%) without significant complications. Similarly, EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of gastric varices (GV) have high technical success (98%) and GV obliteration rate (84%) with few complications (15%) and rebleeding events (17%).

CONCLUSION

EUS in liver diseases is a promising technique with the potential to be considered a first-line therapeutic and diagnostic option in selected cases.

EUS-guided coil injection therapy in the management of gastric varices: the first U.S. multicenter experience (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite the significant morbidity associated with gastric variceal bleeding, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding optimal management. EUS-guided coil injection therapy (EUS-COIL) has recently emerged as a promising endoscopic modality for the treatment of gastric varices (GV), particularly compared with traditional direct endoscopic glue injection. Although there are data on the feasibility and safety of EUS-COIL in the management of GV, these have been limited to select centers with particular expertise. The aim of this study was to report the first U.S. multicenter experience of EUS-COIL for the management of GV.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients with bleeding GV or GV at risk of bleeding who underwent EUS-COIL at 10 U.S. tertiary care centers between 2018 and 2022. Baseline patient and procedure-related information was obtained. EUS-COIL entailed the injection of .018 inch or .035 inch hemostatic coils using a 22-gauge or 19-gauge FNA needle. Primary outcomes were technical success (defined as successful deployment of coil into varix under EUS guidance with diminution of Doppler flow), clinical success (defined as cessation of bleeding if present and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days' postintervention), and intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included (mean age 60.4 ± 12.8 years; 41.5% female). The most common etiology of GV was cirrhosis (71.7%), with alcohol being the most common cause (43.4%). Overall, 71.7% presented with acute GV bleeding requiring intensive care unit stay and/or blood transfusion. The most common GV encountered were isolated GV type 1 (60.4%). A mean of 3.8 ± 3 coils were injected with a total mean length of 44.7 ± 46.1 cm. Adjunctive glue or absorbable gelatin sponge was injected in 82% of patients. Technical success and clinical success were 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Intraprocedural adverse events (pulmonary embolism and GV bleeding from FNA needle access) occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and postprocedural adverse events occurred in 5 (4.7%), of which 3 were mild. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 15 patients (14.1%) at a mean of 32 days. Eighty percent of patients with recurrent bleeding were successfully re-treated with repeat EUS-COIL. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between high-volume (>15 cases) and low-volume (<7 cases) centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This U.S. multicenter experience on EUS-COIL for GV confirms high technical and clinical success with low adverse events. No significant differences were seen between high- and low-volume centers. Repeat EUS-COIL seems to be an effective rescue option for patients with recurrent bleeding GV. Further prospective studies should compare this modality versus other interventions commonly used for GV.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided injection of cyanoacrylate in the treatment of gastroesophageal varices type 1: a single-center randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

First, it has been demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection (EUS-CYA) has greater efficacy than direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate (DEI-CYA) for treating type 1-isolated gastric varices. However, it is necessary to conduct further studies to determine whether EUS has any advantage over the current guidelines for treating gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1). Second, liver function is an important prognostic factor in patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, we evaluated the liver function of patients treated with EUS-CYA.

METHODS

In a single-center study, a prospective cohort from February 2021 to September 2022 involving 89 patients with cirrhosis with GOV1 were assigned to undergo EUS-CYA (n = 45) or DEI-CYA (n = 44). The success rate of CYA injection, the rate of overall rebleeding, the rate of reintervention, the complications during the follow-up period, and the liver function were compared.

RESULTS

In both groups, 100% of the operations were successful. The follow-up time of the two groups was 290 (153-398) days and 267 (177-416) days, respectively. In the EUS group, the perforating veins had an average diameter of 7.0 ± 2.7 mm, and they had a 100% occlusion rate. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the number of sessions needed to eradicate GV (p = 0.005, pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Bonferroni correction method.), the late rebleeding rate after EUS-CYA [n = 3 (6.7%) vs n = 10 (22.7%); p = 0.032], and the incidence of postinjection ulcers [n = 4 (8.9%) vs n = 12 (27.3); p = 0.023)]. Following EUS or DEI-CYA treatment, the patient's liver function did not show any significant deterioration or decline.

CONCLUSION

EUS-CYA has a higher eradication success rate and fewer complications, recurrences, and rebleeding episodes than DEI-CYA used for GOV1 treatment. In addition, EUS-CYA did not impair liver function.

EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: International multicentre propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted.

RESULTS

Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Clinical outcomes of clip-assisted endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection versus conventional endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in treating gastric varices with a gastrorenal shunt

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The optimal treatment for gastric varices (GVs) is a topic that remains definite for this study. This study compared the clinical outcomes of clip-assisted endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (clip-ECI) to conventional endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (con-ECI) for the treatment of GVs with a gastrorenal shunt.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively in five medical centers from 2015 to 2020. The patients were treated with con-ECI (n = 126) or clip-ECI (n = 148). Clinical characteristics and procedural outcomes were compared. Patients were followed until death, liver transplantation or 6 months after the treatment. The primary outcome was rebleeding, and the secondary outcome was survival.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, sex, etiology, shunt diameter and Child-Pugh classification between the two groups. Fewer GVs obliteration sessions were required in the clip-ECI group than in the con-ECI group (p = 0.015). The cumulative 6-month rebleeding-free rates were 88.6% in the clip-ECI group and 73.7% in the con-ECI group (p = 0.002). The cumulative 6-month survival rates were 97.1% in the clip-ECI group and 94.8% in the con-ECI group (p = 0.378).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with con-ECI, clip-ECI appears more effective for the treatment of GVs with a gastrorenal shunt, which required less sessions and achieved a higher 6-month rebleeding-free rate.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Interventional EUS for Vascular Investigation and Therapy: Commentary

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence supporting and examine opportunities for future research in endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular investigation and therapies.

METHODS

This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are advanced endoscopists with expertise in endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular investigation and therapy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular interventions: An expanding paradigm

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has expanded its arena from a mere diagnostic modality to an essential therapeutic tool in managing gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The proximity of the GI tract to the vascular structures in the mediastinum and the abdomen has facilitated the growth of EUS in the field of vascular interventions. EUS provides important clinical and anatomical information related to the vessels' size, appearance and location. Its excellent spatial resolution, use of colour doppler with or without contrast enhancement and ability to provide images "real-time" helps in precision while intervening vascular structures. Additionally, structures such as venous collaterals or varices can be dealt with optimally using EUS. EUS-guided vascular therapy with coil and glue combination has revolutionized the management of portal hypertension. It also helps to avoid radiation exposure in addition to being minimally invasive. These advantages have led EUS to become an upcoming modality to complement traditional interventional radiology in the field of vascular interventions. EUS-guided portal vein (PV) access and therapy is a new kid on the block. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, injecting chemotherapy in PV and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has expanded the horizons of endo-hepatology. Lastly, EUS has also forayed into cardiac interventions allowing pericardial fluid aspiration and tumour biopsy with experimental data on access to valvular apparatus. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the expanding paradigm of EUS-guided vascular interventions in GI bleeding, portal vein access and its related therapeutic interventions, cardiac access, and therapy. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Hepatology

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been an indispensable and widely used diagnostic tool in several medical fields, including gastroenterology, cardiology, and urology, due to its diverse therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Many studies show that it is effective and safe in patients with liver conditions where conventional endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging are inefficient or when surgical interventions pose high risks. In this article, we present a review of the current literature for the different diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in liver diseases and their complications and discuss the potential future application of artificial intelligence analysis of EUS.

EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection into the perforating vein versus direct endoscopic injection in the treatment of gastric varices

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.

Current landscape of therapeutic EUS: Changing paradigms in gastroenterology practice

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection versus balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for gastric varices with high-risk ectopic embolism: A multicenter and retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Gastric varices (GV) with spontaneous portosystemic shunt (SPSS) are associated with ectopic embolism in endoscopic cyanoacrylate. This study targeted to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection versus balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for GV with high-risk ectopic embolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed six tertiary hospitals' 104 patients with GV at high-risk ectopic embolism (the narrowest diameter of SPSS was greater than or equal to 5 mm and the maximum diameter usually >8 mm) who underwent EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or BRTO from January 2014 to December 2020. The outcomes included rebleeding, survival, and complications.

RESULTS

The EUS group and BRTO group contained 59 and 45 patients, respectively. The technical success rate between the two groups was similar (96.6% vs. 95.6%, P = 1.000). During the follow-up, both groups' 5-day rebleeding rate and 6-week mortality rate were 0%. One-year all-cause rebleeding rate (20.0% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.900) and 1-year mortality rate (2.0% vs. 0%, P = 1.000) in the EUS group were similar to the BRTO group. One patient experienced ectopic embolism in the EUS group, while the BRTO group did not. Both groups had similar mean days (16.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 12.0-19.0] vs. 16.5 [IQR, 11.8-26.0], P = 0.165) and cost of hospitalization (¥ 45950.6 [IQR, 39330.2-55768.2] vs. ¥ 51205.8 [IQR, 31628.8-74251.5], P = 0.680). Multivariate analysis showed that the narrowest diameter of the shunt (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.062-3.258; P = 0.03) and content of hemoglobin (OR = 0.941; 95% CI: 0.892-0.992; P = 0.025) were the prognostic factors for survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for GV with high-risk ectopic embolism are comparable to BRTO.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coiling and glue is safe and superior to endoscopic glue injection in gastric varices with severe liver disease: a retrospective case control study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Gastric varices (GV) are present in 25% of cirrhotic patients with high rates of rebleeding and mortality. Data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment in severe liver disease (model for end stage liver disease sodium [MELD-Na] >18 and Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] C with GV) are scarce. Thus, we performed a retrospective comparison of endoscopic glue injection with EUS-guided therapy in cirrhotic patients with large GV.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in the tertiary hospitals of India. A total of 80 patients were recruited. The inclusion criteria were gastroesophageal varices type 2, isolated gastric varices type 1, bleeding within 6 weeks, size of GV >10 mm, and a MELD-Na >18. Treatment outcomes and complications of endoscopic glue injection and EUS-guided GV therapy were compared.

RESULTS

In this study, the patients' age, sex, liver disease severity (CTP, MELD-Na) and clinical parameters were comparable. The median number of procedures, injected glue volume, complications, and GV obturation were better in the EUS group, respectively. On subgroup analysis of the EUS method (e.g., direct gastric fundus vs. paragastric collateral [PGC] coil placement), PGC coil placement showed decreased coil requirement, less injected glue volume, decreased luminal coil extrusion, and increased successful GV obturation.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided treatment is more efficient and safer, and requires a smaller number of treatment sessions, as compared to endoscopic treatment in severe liver disease patients with large GV. Furthermore, PGC coil placement increases the complete obliteration of GV.

Ендоваскулярне лікування варикозно розширених вен шлунка під контролем ендосонографії

Шлункова варикозна кровотеча супроводжується високою летальністю. Ендоскопічна ін’єкція ціаноакрилату є стандартною терапією, однак рецидивна кровотеча та побічні ефекти, такі як виразки в місці ін’єкції та дистальна емболія, є підводним каменем цієї терапії. Ендоскопічне лікування варикозного розширення вен шлунка під ендосонографічним контролем має кілька можливих переваг перед сучасними методами лікування. Воно дозволяє детально оцінити анатомію судин, подібну ефективність і безпеку поточних методів лікування, а також дає змогу оцінити ефект лікування за допомогою ультразвукової допплерівської візуалізації. Ми розглядаємо методи лікування варикозного розширення вен шлунка, включаючи ендоскопічну ін’єкцію ціаноакрилату та спіралей під контролем ендосонографії, окремо або в комбінації, ін’єкцію тромбіну та желатинової губки, що розсмоктується. Відповідний відбір пацієнтів для цих процедур має першорядне значення для забезпечення отримання корисних клінічних даних і безпеки пацієнтів. Ми шукали літературу в базі даних MedLine на платформі PubMed.

Diagnostic and interventional EUS in hepatology: An updated review

EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.

Introduction

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was born from the combination of a high-frequency ultrasound probe with an endoscope to assess in detail the walls of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs and structures. The subsequent possibility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition has rapidly established the irreplaceable role of EUS in the management of a wide range of benign and malignant gastrointestinal diseases. The actual diagnostic armamentarium involving fine-Doppler, elastography, and contrast enhancement has significantly improved its diagnostic yield, which could be even more refined by newer ways of interrogating data and images, such as artificial intelligence. Technological development (e.g., new echendoscopes, larger operative channels, special-design needles, lumen apposing metal stents, and dedicated biliary stents) and the clinical need for new, more effective, and less-invasive procedures has rapidly evolved EUS from a purely diagnostic tool to a therapeutic modality, that is making increasingly outdated some surgical or radiological procedures that have hitherto been considered standard of care.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in vascular interventions: Where are we now?

From a mere diagnostic tool to an imperative treatment modality, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved and revolutionized safer efficient options for vascular interventions. Currently it is an alternative treatment option in the management of gastrointestinal bleeding, primarily variceal type bleeding. Conventional treatment option prior to EUS incorporation had limited efficiency and high adverse events. The characterization and detail provided by EUS gives a cutting edge towards a holistically successful management choice. Data indicates that EUS-guided combination therapy of coil embolization and glue injection has the higher efficacy for the treatment of varices. Conversely, similar treatment options that exist for esophageal and other ectopic variceal bleeding was also outlined. In conclusion, many studies refer that a combination therapy of coil and glue injection under EUS guidance provides higher technical success with fewer recurrence and adverse events, making its adaptation in the guideline extremely favorable. Endo-hepatology is a novel disciple with a promising future outlook, we reviewed topics regarding portal vein access, pressure gradient measurement, and thrombus biopsy that are crucial interventions as alternative of radiological procedures. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the latest available evidence in the literature regarding the role of EUS in vascular interventions. We reviewed the role of EUS in variceal bleeding in recent studies, especially gastric varices and novel approaches aimed at the portal vein.

Secondary Prophylaxis of Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal approach for secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) in patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of available treatments. A comprehensive search of several databases from each database's inception to March 23, 2021, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were rebleeding and mortality. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. We included 9 RCTs with 647 patients who had histories of GVB and follow-ups >6 weeks. A total of 9 interventions were included in the NMA. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding when compared with β-blockers (RR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; low certainty), and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS)-cyanoacrylate (CYA) (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.77; low certainty). β-blockers were associated with a higher risk of rebleeding compared with most interventions and with increased mortality compared with EIS-CYA (RR, 4.12, 95% CI, 1.50-11.36; low certainty), and EIS-CYA + nonselective β-blockers (RR, 5.61; 95% CI, 1.91-16.43; low certainty). Analysis based on indirect comparisons suggests that BRTO may be the best intervention in preventing rebleeding, whereas β-blocker monotherapy is likely the worst in preventing rebleeding and mortality. Head-to-head RCTs are needed to validate these results.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided combination therapy for treatment of gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided combination therapy (coil and hemostatic glue) for bleeding and non-bleeding gastric varices has recently attracted considerable attention after promising results were published in multiple small studies. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided combination therapy in the treatment of GVs.

METHODS

Publications investigating the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided combination therapy in patients with gastric varices were searched in Medline, Ovid Journals, Medline non-indexed citations and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects model.

RESULTS

In pooled analysis of 10 studies (N = 323), the technical success of EUS-guided combination therapy was 98.66% (95% CI 97.14-99.62). The pooled variceal obliteration rate after first session of treatment was 78.31% (95% CI 73.05-83.14). In patients requiring single or multiple treatment sessions, the overall variceal obliteration rate was 96.79% (95% CI 94.28-98.60). The pooled rate of hemorrhage from treated gastric varices was 4.92% (95% CI 2.85-7.52). After EUS-guided combination therapy, the pooled percentage of patients developing abdominal pain was 9.79% (95% CI 6.82-13.24), pulmonary embolism was 2.20% (95% CI 0.89-4.06), febrile episodes was 1.17% (95% CI 0.30-2.61), and procedure-related bleeding was noted in 2.62% (95% CI 1.18-4.63) of the patients. Subgroup analysis of studies using coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection showed pooled variceal obliteration rate of 77.92% (95% CI 72.35-83.01) after first session of treatment. In patients requiring single or multiple treatment sessions, the overall variceal obliteration rate was 96.76% (95% CI 94.11-98.65). The pooled rate of re-bleeding from treated gastric varices was 5.09% (95% CI 2.90-7.83).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-guided combination therapy is safe and effective for patients with gastric varices and should be considered in the clinical management of these patients.

Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a common type of upper gastrointestinal emergency with high risk of life-threatening conditions. Nowadays some standard guidelines for the treatments of NVUGIB have been established based on endoscopic therapies, including injection of glues or sclerosing agents, coiling, band ligation, and thermal therapies. Nevertheless, some patients are refractory to standard endoscopic treatments. We have noticed that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments have been performed by some endoscopists in certain conditions. This review aims to evaluate the role of EUS-guided treatments in the management of NVUGIB. We performed a MEDLINE/PubMed search, and relevant studies were extracted and examined. According to the existing literature, the most common lesions were Dieulafoy's lesion, pancreatic pseudoaneurysms, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. EUS-guided treatments mainly include injection, mechanical therapies, and combined therapies, and seem to be a promising technique in the management of NVUGIB, especially for refractory bleeding.

A state-of-the-art comprehensive review summarizing the emerging data on endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver diseases management

Liver diseases are among the most common diseases worldwide accounting for substantial morbidity and mortality. Most liver diseases necessitate radiological evaluation or accurate diagnosis and recently for management as well. In the last decade, the application of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedure has been increasingly utilized for the management of various liver diseases. In this comprehensive narrative review article, we provide systematic overview on EUS-guided therapeutic interventions in various liver diseases summarizing most updated data regarding technical success, outcomes and safety profiles. Overall, 35 articles have reported on the use of EUS in the treatment of liver diseases with excellent technical success, favorable radiological response and high safety profiles for EUS-guided treatment of solid and cystic liver lesion and for EUS-guided angiotherapy for gastric varices, except for EUS-guided cyanoacrylate glue injection which was associated with life-threatening fatal systemic embolization adverse events. This suggests that EUS-guided intervention is a new promising therapeutic intervention for the treatment of various liver diseases with durable effect and a limited potential for adverse events.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the field of hepatology: Recent advances and future trends

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases has been expanding. The imaging or intervention for various liver diseases has primarily been the domain of radiologists. With the advances in EUS, the domain of endosonologists is rapidly expanding in the field of hepatology. The ability to combine endoscopy and sonography in one hybrid device is a unique property of EUS, together with the ability to bring its probe/transducer near the liver, the area of interest. Its excellent spatial resolution and ability to provide real-time images coupled with several enhancement techniques, such as contrast-enhanced (CE) EUS, have facilitated the growth of EUS. The concept of "Endo-hepatology" encompasses the wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are now gradually becoming feasible for managing various liver diseases. Diagnostic advancements can enable a wide array of techniques from elastography and liver biopsy for liver parenchymal diseases, to CE-EUS for focal liver lesions to portal pressure measurements for managing various liver conditions. Similarly, therapeutic advancements range from EUS-guided eradication of varices, drainage of bilomas and abscesses to various EUS-guided modalities of liver tumor management. We provide a comprehensive review of all the different diagnostic and therapeutic EUS modalities available for the management of various liver diseases. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Liver Disease: Where Do We Stand?

As the burden of liver disease in the general populace steadily increases, so does the need for both advanced diagnostic and treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound is a reliable diagnostic and therapeutic method that has an established role, foremost in pancreatobiliary pathology. This paper aims to summarize the growing role of endoscopic ultrasound in hepatology based on the search of the current literature. A number of applications of endoscopic ultrasound are reviewed, including both noninvasive methods and tissue acquisition in focal and diffuse liver disease, portal hypertension measurement, detection and management of gastric and esophageal varices, treatment of focal liver lesions and staging of pancreatobiliary malignancies, treatment of cystic and solid liver lesions, as well as liver abscess drainage. Both hepatologists and endoscopists should be aware of the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease. The inherent invasive nature of endoscopic examination limits its use to a targeted population identified using noninvasive methods. Endoscopic ultrasound is one the most versatile methods in gastroenterology, allowing immediate access with detection, sampling, and treatment of digestive tract pathology. Further expansion of its use in hepatology is immanent.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular interventions: Current insights and emerging techniques

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is one of the significant breakthroughs in the field of advanced endoscopy. In the last two decades, EUS has evolved from a diagnostic tool to a real-time therapeutic modality. The luminal gastrointestinal (GI) tract provides a unique opportunity to access multiple vascular structures, especially in the mediastinum and abdomen, thus permitting a variety of EUS-guided vascular interventions. The addition of the doppler and contrast-enhanced capability to EUS has further helped provide real-time visualization of blood flow in vessels through the GI tract. EUS-guided vascular interventions rely on standard endoscopic accessories and interventional tools such as fine-needle aspiration needles and fine-needle biopsy. EUS allows the visualization of various structures in real-time by differentiating tissue densities and vascularity, thus, avoiding radiation exposure. EUS-guided techniques also allow real-time microscopic examination after target biopsy. Furthermore, many necessary interventions can be done during the same procedure after diagnosis. This article provides an overview of EUS-guided vascular interventions such as variceal, non-variceal bleeding interventions, EUSguided portal vein (PV) access with the formation of an intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, and techniques related to diagnosis of GI malignancies. Furthermore, we discuss current insights and future outlook of therapeutic modalities like PV embolization, PV sampling, angiography, drug administration, and portal pressure measurement.

Endoscopic Band Ligation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation in the Treatment of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I2=0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I2=0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I2=96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I2=0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.

Safety, Efficacy, and Outcomes of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Glue Injection through the Endoscopic or Radiologic Route for Variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to assess the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) injection for the treatment of variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for English-language studies published from January 1980 to December 2019 and including patients who had injection of NBCA for variceal GIB. Two independent reviewers extracted and evaluated the data from eligible studies. Exclusion criteria were sample size < 5, article reporting the use of NBCA with other embolic agents, no extractable data, and duplicate reports. NBCA was injected during endoscopy in 42 studies and through a direct percutaneous approach for stomal varices in 1 study. The study’s endpoints were: Technical success, 30-day rebleeding, and 30-day overall and major complications. The estimated overall rates were computed with 95% confidence intervals, based on each study rate, weighted by the number of patients involved in each study. In total, 43 studies with 3484 patients were included. The technical success rate was 94.1% (95% CI: 91.6–96.1%), the 30-day rebleeding rate was 24.2% (18.9–29.9%), and 30-day overall and major complications occurred in 15.9% (11.2–21.3%) and 5.3% (3.3–7.8%) of patients, respectively. For treating variceal GIB, NBCA injection is a safe and effective method that demonstrates high technical success rate and very low major complication rate.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in the Management of Gastric Varices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastric varices (GV) are an important complication of portal hypertension, and the current recommendation for management is beta-blocker therapy for primary prophylaxis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for active bleeding or secondary prophylaxis. Direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue has been investigated but has drawbacks including limited endoscopic characterization of GV and possible distal glue embolism. To this end, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been pursued to help in characterization of GV, visualization of treatment in real time, and confirmation of obliteration with Doppler.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this paper, we review treatments for GV involving EUS, including EUS-guided injection of CYA and coils, either alone or in combination. We also discuss less common methods, including EUS-guided injection of thrombin and absorbable gelatin sponge. We then review literature comparing EUS-guided methods with direct endoscopic therapy and comparing individual EUS-guided methods with one another. We conclude by highlighting drawbacks of EUS in this field, including the unproven benefit over conventional therapy, lack of a standardized approach, and limited availability of expertise and necessary materials. Novel EUS-based methods offer a unique opportunity to directly visualize and access gastric varices for treatment and obliteration. This may provide key advantages over current endoscopic or angiographic treatments. Comparative studies investigating the benefit of EUS over conventional therapy are needed.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF GASTROPANEL® FOR ATROPHIC GASTRITIS IN BRAZILIAN SUBJECTS AND THE EFFECT OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that the combination of gastrin-17 (G-17), pepsinogens I and II (PGI and PGII), and anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) antibodies (GastroPanel®, BIOHIT HealthCare, Helsinki, Finland) could serve as biomarkers of atrophic gastritis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ensure the diagnostic accuracy of GastroPanel® and evaluate the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on these biomarkers.

METHODS

Dyspeptic patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled in the present study. Histological findings, which were the gold standard to stratify groups, were as follows: no atrophy (controls); antrum atrophy; corpus atrophy; multifocal atrophy; and neoplasia. G-17, PGI, PGII, and anti-H. pylori immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies were assayed using commercially available kits. The ratio of PGI/PGII was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 308 patients, 159 (51.6%) were PPI users. The overall prevalence of atrophy was 43.8% (n=135). Ninety-two (29.9%) patients were H. pylori positive according to anti-H. pylori IgG levels. G-17 levels were not low in those with antrum atrophy but were high in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies. PGI levels were significantly lower in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies. The sensitivity of PGI <30 µg/L to detect corpus atrophy was 50% (95% CI 27.8-72.1%), with a specificity of 93.2% (95% CI 84.3-97.5%), a positive likelihood ratio of 7.4 (95% CI 2.9-19.2), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8). A small number of subjects (n=6) exhibited moderate to intense atrophy (4%), among whom 66.7% exhibited decreased PGI levels. PPI significantly increased the levels of G-17 and PGI, except in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies, in whom PGI levels were not increased by PPIs.

CONCLUSION

GastroPanel® (Gastrin-17, PGI, and PGI/PGII ratio) did not demonstrate high sensitivity for detecting gastric atrophy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of gastric varices with coil embolization and absorbable hemostatic gelatin sponge: a novel alternative to cyanoacrylate

Background and study aims  Bleeding from gastric varices (GV) carries high morbidity and mortality. Current endoscopic therapies are premised on cyanoacrylate injection which is technically challenging and carries risk of embolization. We present a case series of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil injection in combination with hemostatic absorbable gelatin sponge (AGS) for treatment of bleeding gastric varices. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective review of EUS-guided coil injection for bleeding GV since November 2017. After EUS-guided needle puncture, hemostatic coils were serially injected until significant reduction of Doppler flow. Under fluoroscopic guidance, test contrast was injected to confirm absence of run-off, at which time AGS, converted into a liquid slurry, was injected as hemostatic reinforcement. Results  Ten consecutive patients underwent EUS-guided coil embolization reinforced by AGS. Technical success, defined as uncomplicated injection of coils and sponge was achieved in 100 % (10/10). Mean follow-up was 6 months 73-397 days; No patients rebled or required reintervention on GV. The complication rate was 10 % (1/10; severe abdominal pain without radiographic findings); otherwise, there were no cases of systemic embolization. Nine of 10 patients (90 %) had follow-up EUS (mean 80 days); 100 % (9/9) revealed near-obliteration of GV. Conclusion  EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with hemostatic AGS is a novel method for management of bleeding GV with high clinical and technical success rates, low risk for complications and favorable safety profile when compared to cyanoacrylate. This technique theoretically minimizes embolic complications and need for re-intervention. Further studies are required to compare this modality.