Evaluation of Treatment Response after Endoscopic Variceal Obturation with Abdominal Computed Tomography

Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We retrospectively compared the effect of endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) and retrograde transvenous obliteration (RTO) in acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding treated with EVO or RTO at two hospitals were included.

RESULTS

Ninety patients treated with EVO and 86 treated with RTO were analyzed. The mean model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (13.5 vs. 11.7, P = 0.016). The bleeding control rates were high (97.8% vs. 96.5%), and the treatment-related complication rates were low in both EVO and RTO groups (2.2% vs. 3.5%). During the median follow-up of 18.0 months, gastric variceal (GV) and esophageal variceal rebleeding occurred in 34 (19.3%) and 7 (4.0%) patients, respectively. The all-variceal rebleeding rates were comparable between EVO and RTO groups (32.4% vs. 20.8% at 2-year, P = 0.150), while the GV rebleeding rate was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (32.4% vs. 12.8% at 2-year, P = 0.003). On propensity score-matched analysis (71 patients in EVO vs. 71 patients in RTO group), both all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates were significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (all P < 0.05). In Cox regression analysis, EVO (vs. RTO) was the only significant predictor of higher GV rebleeding risk (hazard ratio 3.132, P = 0.005). The mortality rates were similar between two groups (P = 0.597).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EVO and RTO effectively controlled acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding. RTO was superior to EVO in preventing all-variceal and GV rebleeding after treatment, with similar survival outcomes.

Hemodynamic effect through a novel endoscopic intervention in management of varices and hypersplenism (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We previously reported a new and combined EUS-guided intervention in a patient with portal hypertension, consisting of obliteration of varices and partial splenic embolization (PSE). Performing PSE is known to diminish the increase in portal venous pressure after endoscopic intervention for varices. The aim of this study was to use multidetector CT portal venography to evaluate the anatomy of esophagogastric varices (EGV) and the impact on hemodynamics of portosystemic collaterals shortly after the concomitant procedures.

METHODS

From October 2019 to December 2020, 5 patients with cirrhosis and with clinically significant portal hypertension who had variceal bleeding history and hypersplenism were treated with combined endoscopic obliteration for varices and EUS-guided PSE. Multidetector CT portal venography was applied to assess the anatomic drainage patterns of the EGV, diameters of feeders and drainage vessels, and splenic embolization rate.

RESULTS

Within 5 days after concomitant endoscopic interventions, we observed decreased mean diameters of the left gastric vein, short gastric vein, and azygos vein as .3 mm, 1.0 mm, and 5.2 mm compared with 3.11 mm, 7.1 mm, and 5.4 mm before the procedures, respectively. Patients showed increased white blood cells (mean count of 2.7 × 10⁹/L before vs 5.8 × 10⁹/L after) and platelets (mean count of 52.8 × 10⁹/L before vs 95.8 × 10⁹/L after). The mean splenic embolization rate was 64.5% (range, 28.8%-84.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience may illustrate an alternative technique of combining EUS-guided PSE with endoscopic therapy of varices to treat patients with portal hypertension.

[Value of purple sign for predicting rebleeding events in cirrhotic patients following endoscopic selective varices devascularization]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of the purple sign for predicting long-term rebleeding events in cirrhotic patients following endoscopic selective varices devascularization.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 97 patients with liver cirrhosis, who had a history of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and underwent endoscopic selective varices devascularization. Thirty-two of the patients showed purple sign after endoscopic treatment. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to minimize the selection bias of the patients (purple sign vs no purple sign) and reduce the intergroup differences of clinical characteristics. The primary outcome measure of this study was cumulative rebleeding events after endoscopic selective varices devascularization.

RESULTS

The 1-year rebleeding rate (27.0% vs 36.7%) or 6-month rebleeding rate (10.9% vs 26.9%) following endoscopic treatment was not significantly different between the purple sign group and no purple sign group before PSM (P=0.2385). But after PSM, the 1-year rebleeding rate (28.2% vs 56.4%) and 6-month rebleeding rate (5.0% vs 37.0%) were significantly lower in the purple sign group than in the no purple sign group (P=0.0304).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of purple sign indicates a lower risk of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of cirrhotic gastroesophageal varices and a potentially favorable treatment response after endoscopic therapy, thus providing a clinical indicator for stratification of the patients for sequential endoscopic sessions.

Two Cases of Fungemia after Endoscopic Variceal Obturation for Gastric Variceal Bleeding

Fever is a common complication of endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) therapy for gastric variceal bleeding. However, fungemia related to EVO therapy has not yet been reported. Herein, we report two cases of post-EVO fungemia in cirrhotic patients who underwent therapeutic EVO for gastric variceal bleeding. Both patients developed sustained high fever after repeated EVO procedures while on prophylactic antibiotic use. In both patients, blood cultures revealed yeast, and they were finally diagnosed with Candida infection. Candida is a common member of the intestinal flora; however, it can cause invasive infection with consequent poor prognosis in cirrhotic patients. The route of Candida invasion is unclear; however, repeated EVO may predispose patients to Candida infection, particularly those who are in the end stage of liver disease and receiving prophylactic antibiotics. Our cases highlight that repeated invasive procedures can increase the risk of fungal infections, and fungemia should be considered in the differential diagnosis of post-EVO fever.

Efficacy of CTPV for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Assessment: Comparison with Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients with Gastroesophageal Varices

Background and Aims

Computed tomography portal venography (CTPV) shows potential in detecting varices that need treatment and their drainage pathways. However, its agreement with endoscopy requires further study. We investigated the feasibility of CTPV as an alternative tool to endoscopy in screening gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) and developed a CTPV-based model to provide a less invasive assessment of endotherapy for cirrhotic patients with GEVs.

Methods

The study included 33 cirrhotic patients with a recent history of variceal hemorrhage. The presence, grade, and classification of GEVs on endoscopy and CTPV were compared (kappa test). Twenty-four patients were treated endoscopically, including 12 for esophageal varices (EVs), 8 for gastric varices (GVs), and 4 for GEVs. Treatment efficacies were assessed with the newly developed CTPV-based method at 1 week and 1 month after treatment. Efficiency evaluated by CTPV and endoscopy was compared by Fisher's exact test to determine whether CTPV is efficient in the assessment of endotherapy efficacy.

Results

For the screening and grading/classification of EVs and GVs, substantial agreement (EV kappa: 0.63 and 0.68; GV kappa: 0.62 and 0.75, respectively) was noted between endoscopy and CTPV. The therapeutic efficacy of EVs was higher when assessed by CTPV than when evaluated by endoscopy (37.50% vs. 12.50% at 1 week postoperation, P = 0.22; 62.50% vs. 25.00% at 1 month postoperation, P = 0.07), but without statistical significance. The same trend was also found in the assessment of therapeutic efficacy for GVs (25.00% vs. 16.67% at 1 week postoperation, P = 1; 58.33% vs. 41.67% at 1 month postoperation, P = 0.68).

Conclusion

CTPV is comparable to endoscopy in the detection of GEVs and in the evaluation of endotherapy efficacy, which suggests that it could be a less invasive alternative for endoscopy in cirrhotic patients with GEVs needing treatment.