Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatment of Gastric Varices Using Coils and Cyanoacrylate Glue Injections: Results after 1 Year of Experience

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of isolated gastric varices entwined with arteries: A case report

BACKGROUND

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound is clinically used for the treatment of isolated gastric varices (IGVs) owing to its precise visualization.

CASE SUMMARY

A 39-year-old man was diagnosed with a large IGV during a routine physical examination. Endoscopic ultrasonography showed gastric varices entwined with an artery, which greatly increased the difficulty of treatment. We successfully treated the patient with endoscopic ultrasonography-guided coil embolization combined with cyanoacrylate injection.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided coil embolization combined with cyanoacrylate injection was safe and effective for the treatment of an IGV entwined with an artery.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with cyanoacrylate injection versus conventional endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the treatment of gastric varices with spontaneous portosystemic shunts

Background

Gastric varices (GV) with spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSS) pose considerable risks and challenges for administering endoscopic cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with CYA injection compared to conventional endoscopic CYA injection for managing GV with SPSS.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included patients with SPSS treated with either EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with CYA injection or conventional CYA injection for gastric variceal bleeding at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital (Zhejiang, China) between January 2018 and March 2023. Patient demographics, procedural details, and follow-up results were reviewed.

Results

The study evaluated 57 patients: 21 in the combined treatment group undergoing EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with CYA injection and 36 in the conventional group receiving conventional endoscopic CYA injection. Both cohorts achieved a 100% technical success rate. The mean volume of CYA used was significantly lower in the combined group (1.64 ± 0.67 mL) than in the conventional group (2.38 ± 0.72 mL; P < 0.001). Early GV rebleeding rates did not differ significantly between the groups; in contrast, the combined treatment group exhibited a considerably lower incidence of late GV rebleeding than the conventional group (4.8% vs 27.8%, P = 0.041).

Conclusions

EUS-guided coil embolization in combination with CYA injection demonstrated superiority over conventional endoscopic CYA injection in reducing late GV rebleeding in treating GV with SPSS.

Isolated gastric varices associated with antiphospholipid syndrome and protein S deficiency: a case report and review of the literature

The mortality rate of gastric varices bleeding can reach 20% within 6 weeks. Isolated gastric varices (IGVs) refer to gastric varices without esophageal varices and typically arise as a common complication of left portal hypertension. Although IGVs commonly form in the setting of splenic vein occlusion, the combination of antiphospholipid syndrome and protein S deficiency leading to splenic vein occlusion is rare. We herein present a case of a 28-year-old woman with intermittent epigastric pain and melena. She was diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome based on the triad of pregnancy morbidity, unexplained venous occlusion, and positive lupus anticoagulant. Laparoscopic splenectomy and pericardial devascularization were performed for the treatment of IGVs. During the 6-month postoperative follow-up, repeated endoscopy and contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed disappearance of the IGVs. This is the first description of splenic vein occlusion associated with both antiphospholipid syndrome and protein S deficiency. We also provide a review of the etiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment methods of IGVs.

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.

Left-sided portal hypertension: Update and proposition of management algorithm

Left-sided or segmental portal hypertension (SPHT) is a rare entity, most often associated with pancreatic disease or antecedent pancreatic surgery. The starting point is splenic vein obstruction secondary to local inflammation or, less often, extrinsic compression. SPHT leads to splenomegaly and development of collateral porto-systemic venous circulation. SPHT should be suspected in patients with pancreatic history who present with episodic upper gastrointestinal bleeding and splenomegaly with normal liver function tests. The most common clinical presentation is major upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to rupture of esophageal and/or gastric varices. At the present time, there are no management recommendations for SPHT, particularly when the patient is asymptomatic. In patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding, hemostasis can be obtained either by medical or interventional means according to patient status and available resources. For symptomatic patients, splenectomy is the reference treatment. Recently, less invasive, radiologic procedures, such as splenic artery embolization, have been developed as an alternative to surgery. Additionally, sonography-guided endoscopic hemostasis can also be envisioned, leading to the diagnosis and treatment of the lesion by elastic band ligation or by glue injection into the varices during the same procedure. The goal of this article is to describe the pathophysiological mechanisms behind SPHT and its clinical manifestations and treatment, based on a review of the literature. Because of the absence of recommendations for the management of SPHT, we propose a decisional algorithm for the management of SPHT based on the literature.

EUS-Guided Combined Injection Therapy as a Secondary Prophylaxis of Gastric Variceal Bleeding in a Patient Contraindicated for TIPS: Case Report

Background: Although bleeding from gastric varices is less observed than esophageal variceal bleeding (VB) (25% vs. 64%), it is associated with an exceedingly high mortality rate of up to 45%. Current guidelines suggest that endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy (ECI) is the first-line treatment for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). A major concern, however, is the possibility of embolic incidents, which are clinically evident in approximately 1% of cases. There are no guidelines for secondary prophylaxis of GVB. Radiological treatments using a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon occlusive transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are considered viable. However, they are not universally inapplicable; for instance, in the setting of pulmonary hypertension (TIPS). EUS-guided combined injection therapy (EUS-CIT) (embolization coils + cyanoacrylate) is an emerging procedure with a perceived reduced risk of systemic embolization. Case presentation: A patient with alcoholic liver cirrhosis was subjected to EUS-CIT as a secondary prophylaxis for GVB. He had three VB episodes of prior presentation treated by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and ECI. Due to recurrent episodes of bleeding, he was referred to TIPS, but was considered contraindicated due to severe pulmonary hypertension. EUS-CIT was conducted with two embolization coils inserted into the varix, followed by an injection of 1.5 mL of cyanoacrylate glue. A 19 Ga needle, 0.035″ 14/70 mm coils, non-diluted n-butyl-caynoacrylate, and a transgastric approach were utilized. There were no immediate complications. Complete obliteration of the GV was observed in a follow-up endoscopy on day 30. Subsequent endoscopies in months three and six showed no progression of gastric varices. Conclusions: Our initial experience with EUS-CIT suggests that it can be successfully used as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent GVB.

EUS-guided therapies for primary and secondary prophylaxis in gastric varices-An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Objectives

Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS-guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 % statistics.

Results

Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1-95.2; I2 = 0). With combination EUS-glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%-98.5%; I2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%-12.4%; I2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%-95.2%; I2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%-97.1%; I2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%-99.1%; I2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%-95.1%; I2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%-91.2%; I2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%-90.6%; I2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%-97.1%; I2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%-96.7%; I2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%-24.3%; I2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%-39.5%; I2 = 66), respectively.

Conclusion

Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intraportal injection of autologous bone marrow in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis: A case series

BACKGROUND

Recently, stem cell therapy has been extensively studied as a promising treatment for decompensated liver cirrhosis (DLC). Technological advances in endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) have facilitated EUS-guided portal vein (PV) access, through which stem cells can be precisely infused.

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and safety of fresh autologous bone marrow injection into the PV under EUS guidance in patients with DLC.

METHODS

Five patients with DLC were enrolled in this study after they provided written informed consent. EUS-guided intraportal bone marrow injection with a 22G FNA needle was performed using a transgastric, transhepatic approach. Several parameters were assessed before and after the procedure for a follow-up period of 12 mo.

RESULTS

Four males and one female with a mean age of 51 years old participated in this study. All patients had hepatitis B virus-related DLC. EUS-guided intraportal bone marrow injection was performed in all patients successfully without any complications such as hemorrhage. The clinical outcomes of the patients revealed improvements in clinical symptoms, serum albumin, ascites, and Child-Pugh scores throughout the 12-mo follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of EUS-guided fine needle injection for intraportal delivery of bone marrow was feasible and safe and appeared effective in patients with DLC. This treatment may thus be a safe, effective, non-radioactive, and minimally invasive treatment for DLC.

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.

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.

Comparing large-volume band ligators and cyanoacrylate injection for gastric variceal eradication: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopy in the ligation of gastric varices (GV) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) using large-volume ligators for the management of non-bleeding GV in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-eight patients with non-bleeding GV due to cirrhosis were divided randomly into 2 groups: the EBL group and the endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) group. The EBL group underwent EBL with large-volume ligators and the EVO group underwent tissue glue injection for the treatment of GV. Follow-up endoscopy was performed 3 to 4 weeks after endoscopic treatment. Patients were followed up for ≥6 months after treatment. Eradication, complication, and recurrence rates were evaluated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The type and size of GV were similar in both groups. No significant difference was found in the mean number of treatment sessions or eradication and recurrence rates after 6 months. Ulcer bleeding occurred in 2 EBL patients (2.50%) after ligation, whereas 8 EVO patients (10.25%) experienced bleeding due to glue extrusion. The bleeding rate after endoscopic treatment significantly differed between the groups. In the EVO group, 1 patient developed renal embolism after injection and 2 patients developed sepsis. The prevalence of postoperative fever was significantly higher in the EVO group than in the EBL group.

CONCLUSION SUBSECTIONS

Large-volume band ligators have similar efficacy to tissue glue for eradicating GV, however, the former is safer. Nevertheless, multicenter studies are needed to further confirm these results.

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.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment with and without cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Gastric variceal bleeding is more severe than esophageal variceal bleeding, and is associated with higher rebleeding and mortality rates. The benefits of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment alone for treating gastric varices, compared with concomitant cyanoacrylate injection, remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of both modalities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment with/without concomitant cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. The rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (mean age, 55.9 ± 12.9 years; 17 men) underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment, either alone (EUS-coil) (n = 19) or with cyanoacrylate injection (EUS-coil/CYA) (n = 9), to treat cardiofundal varices. Among the 20 patients treated for secondary prophylaxis, including 3 actively bleeding patients (11 via EUS-coil, 9 with EUS-coil/CYA), no significant differences were observed in the rates of rebleeding (1 vs. 2), reintervention (1 vs. 0) or adverse events (1 vs. 1) (all P > 0.05). The 6-month, 1-year, and 3-year overall survival rates did not differ between the treatment groups (crude survival ratio: 76.9% vs. 77.8%; survival rates: 0.923, 0.682, and 0.615 vs. 0.778 for each year; log-rank = 0.227; P = 0.633). In patients treated for primary prophylaxis (n = 8; all via EUS-coil alone), no bleeding episodes were observed after 433 days of follow-up; however, one patient required reintervention for the reappearance of varices without bleeding.

CONCLUSION

EUS-coil alone was not inferior to EUS-coil/CYA combination concerning rebleeding, reintervention, or survival.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.