Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Endoscopic Variceal Ligation (endoscopic + variceal_ligation)
Selected AbstractsGastric bleeding due to Dieulafoy's ulcer successfully treated with an esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) kitDIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, Issue 3 2001Yoshihide Chino Dieulafoy's ulcer is a cause of life-threatening upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. With advanced endoscopic procedures, Dieulafoy's ulcer is easily diagnosed and treated. However, a few patients still need surgery to stop bleeding or they will die of shock. Further improved procedures are therefore required to treat bleeding in Dieulafoy's ulcer. A 77-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with hematemesis and general malaise. He had moderate anemia and azotemia but no past history of gastric ulcer. He was diagnosed with Dieulafoy's ulcer endoscopically. Dieulafoy's ulcer was ligated with an endoscopic variceal ligation kit without surgery. Although an ulcer was found at the ligation point after 1 week, the ulcer changed to the scar on administration of Histamine H2 receptor blockers. The patient has suffered no recurrent ulcer and no bleeding for 24 months. Endoscopic variceal ligation may be an alternative new method for hemostasis of Dieulafoy's ulcer. [source] Factors predicting success of endoscopic variceal ligation for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleedingJOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 1 2006Gavin C Harewood Abstract Introduction:, Endoscopic obliteration of esophageal varices by endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is an effective form of secondary prophylaxis. However, there is no consensus regarding the technical aspects of EVL for secondary prophylaxis. The present study compares the technical aspects of EVL (frequency of sessions, number of sessions and number of bands used) in patients who rebled following secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices by EVL compared to those who did not rebleed. Methods:, All patients who underwent EVL for treatment of acute variceal bleeding followed by EVL for secondary prophylaxis and who subsequently developed recurrent variceal bleeding at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1995 and May 2003 were identified. A control group of patients undergoing EVL for secondary prophylaxis who did not rebleed was identified. Results:, During the study period, 216 patients with acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage underwent emergent EVL treatment with follow-up EVL for secondary prophylaxis, of whom 20 (9.3%) subsequently rebled. Both rebleeding and non-rebleeding patient groups were well-matched with respect to liver function (Child,Pugh class), number and size of variceal trunks, endoscopic stigmata of hemorrhage and beta-blocker usage. The median interval between EVL sessions in the rebleeding group (2 weeks, interquartile range 0,2 weeks) was significantly shorter compared to the non-rebleeding group (5 weeks, interquartile range 3,7 weeks; P = 0.004). Adjusting for age, gender, and Child,Pugh class, interbanding interval , 3 weeks was associated with increased likelihood of not rebleeding, hazard ratio 3.84 (95% confidence interval: 1.69,11.79; P = 0.0007). Conclusions:, These findings demonstrate the importance of technical aspects of EVL on patient outcome, suggesting the benefit of longer interbanding intervals. Future prospective studies are required to define the optimal intersession interval. Standardizing procedural aspects of EVL will aid in objectively evaluating the benefit of this procedure when compared to other modalities such as medical treatment. [source] Predictive factors of bleeding related to post-banding ulcer following endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients: a case-control studyALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 2 2010G. Vanbiervliet Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 225,232 Summary Background, Life-threatening bleeding caused by early spontaneous slippage of rubber bands has been described after variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients. Aim, To determine the predictive factors of this complication in cirrhotic patients. Methods, Among 605 patients, 21 patients (mean age 56.6 ± 13.5 years) developed 23 spontaneous band slippages with bleeding on post banding ulcer, as confirmed by endoscopy. Cirrhosis was alcoholic in 13 patients (62%), post viral hepatitis in three (14%) and from other causes in five (24%). A case-control study was performed comparing 17 from these patients who presented the complication after a first ligation with 84 of the 584 controls who underwent first endoscopic variceal ligation without bleeding complication. Results, Bleeding occurred 13.5 days ± 7.3 (2,29) following ligation. Eleven patients died following the bleeding complication (52%). Using a multivariate analysis, previous upper variceal digestive bleeding [OR 12.07, 95%CI (2.3,63.43)], peptic oesophagitis [OR 8.9, 95%CI (1.65,47.8)], high platelet ratio index (APRI) score [OR 1.54, 95%CI (1.11,2.16)] and low prothrombin index [OR 0.54, 95% CI (0.31,0.94)] were independent predictive factors of bleeding. Conclusions, Bleeding related to post-banding ulcer is a rare, but severe complication. The proposed predictive factors should be looked for and minimized before variceal ligation. [source] Clinical trial: a randomized controlled study on prevention of variceal rebleeding comparing nadolol + ligation vs. hepatic venous pressure gradient-guided pharmacological therapyALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 4 2009C. VILLANUEVA Summary Background, Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring of therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding provides strong prognostic information. Treatment of nonresponders to ,-blockers ± nitrates has not been clarified. Aim, To assess the value of HVPG-guided therapy using nadolol + prazosin in nonresponders to nadolol + isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN) compared with a control group treated with nadolol + ligation. Methods, Cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding were randomized to HVPG-guided therapy (n = 30) or nadolol + ligation (n = 29). A Baseline haemodynamic study was performed and repeated within 1 month. In the guided-therapy group, nonresponders to nadolol + ISMN received nadolol and carefully titrated prazosin and had a third haemodynamic study. Results, Nadolol + prazosin decreased HVPG in nonresponders to nadolol + ISMN (P < 0.001). Finally, 74% of patients were responders in the guided-therapy group vs. 32% in the nadolol + ligation group (P < 0.01). The probability of rebleeding was lower in responders than in nonresponders in the guided therapy group (P < 0.01), but not in the nadolol + ligation group (P = 0.41). In all, 57% of nonresponders rebled in the guided-therapy group and 20% in the nadolol + ligation group (P = 0.05). The incidence of complications was similar. Conclusions, In patients treated to prevent variceal rebleeding, the association of nadolol and prazosin effectively rescued nonresponders to nadolol and ISMN, improving the haemodynamic response observed in controls receiving nadolol and endoscopic variceal ligation. Our results also suggest that ligation may rescue nonresponders. [source] | ||||||||||