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.

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.

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.

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.

Treatment of gastric varices with cyanoacrylate complicated by systemic embolization.

Acute gastric variceal bleeding is a life-threatening condition that could be effectively treated with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection diluted with lipiodol. The mixture acts as a tissue adhesive that polymerizes when in contact with blood in a gastric varix. This work reports a patient that presented to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to acute variceal bleeding, who developed systemic embolization following cyanoacrylate injection therapy. This complication culminated in cerebral, splenic and renal infarctions with a fatal outcome. Systemic embolization is a very rare, but the most severe complication associated with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection and should be considered in patients undergoing this treatment.

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.

Endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate and ethanolamine oleate injection is equivalent to balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for preventing gastric variceal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) is effective for temporary hemostasis, but EIS and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) have been reported as effective for secondary prophylaxis of gastric varices (GV) bleeding. This study retrospectively compared EIS and BRTO in patients with GV in terms of the efficacy for secondary prevention of GV bleeding and effects on liver function. METHODS: From our database of patients with GV who underwent EIS or BRTO between February 2011 and April 2020, a total of 42 patients with GV were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was the bleeding rate from GV, which was compared between EIS and BRTO groups. Secondary endpoints were liver function after treatment and rebleeding rate from EV, compared between EIS and BRTO groups. Rebleeding rates from GV and EV and liver function after treatment were also compared between EIS-ethanolamine oleate (EO)/histoacryl (HA) and EIS-HA groups. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved for all EIS cases, but two cases were unsuccessful in the BRTO group and underwent additional EIS. No significant differences in bleeding rates or endoscopic findings for GV improvement were seen between EIS and BRTO groups. Liver function also showed no significant difference in the amount of change after treatment between groups. CONCLUSION: EIS therapy appears effective for GV in terms of preventing GV rebleeding and effects on liver function after treatment. EIS appears to represent an effective treatment 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.

Size and Number of Gastric Varices Decide Amount of Glue Injected during Endoscopic Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Cyanoacrylate glue injection has become standard of care for acutely bleeding as well as for primary and secondary prophylaxis of high risk gastric varices. There is limited data on safe and effective amount of glue injected. Our study was aimed to fulfill the gap. MATERIALS: It was retrospective analysis of endoscopy laboratory chart, videos and corresponding case sheets of all consecutive endoscopies January to September 2022. Number, type and size of gastric varices, amount of glue injected and outcomes (technical success, intra procedural and post-procedural complications) were noted. RESULT: Among 337 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies performed during the study period, 12 patients had gastric varices. 3 had GOV1F1, 2 had GOV1F2, 8 had GOV2F2, 1 had GOV2F3 and one had isolated gastric varices, IGV2F1. 4 patients had history of upper GI bleed. 3 had one, 4 had two and 3 had three varices. 3 patients had <0.5 cm and 8 had >0.5 cm size varices. Cyanoacrylate glue was injected in 4 patients. Technical success was achieved in all (100%) patients. The amount of Cyanoacrylate glue injected was decided by the size and number of varices and varied between 1-4 ml depending on the above factors. Two patients had intra-procedural, self subsiding bleeding, one patient had severe abdominal pain needing intramuscular analgesic. None had fatal complication. CONCLUSION: Size and numbers of gastric varices are deciding factors for amount of glue injected during endotherapy. References Kumar A, Singh S, Madan K, et al. Undiluted N-butyl cyanoacrylate is safe and effective for gastric variceal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72(4):721-727. Saraswat VA, Verma A. Gluing gastric varices in 2012: lessons learnt over 25 years. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2012;2(1):55-69.

Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Balloon-Occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration for Prevention of Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal treatment for gastric varices (GVs) is a topic that remains open for study. This study compared the efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) to prevent rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and GVs after primary hemostasis. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients with cirrhosis and history of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices type 2 or isolated gastric varices type 1 were randomized to cyanoacrylate injection (n = 32) or BRTO treatment (n = 32). Primary outcomes were gastric variceal rebleeding or all-cause rebleeding. Patient characteristics were well balanced between two groups. Mean follow-up time was 27.1 ± 12.0 months in a cyanoacrylate injection group and 27.6 ± 14.3 months in a BRTO group. Probability of gastric variceal rebleeding was higher in the cyanoacrylate injection group than in the BRTO group (P = 0.024). Probability of remaining free of all-cause rebleeding at 1 and 2 years for cyanoacrylate injection versus BRTO was 77% versus 96.3% and 65.2% versus 92.6% (P = 0.004). Survival rates, frequency of complications, and worsening of esophageal varices were similar in both groups. BRTO resulted in fewer hospitalizations, inpatient stays, and lower medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: BRTO is more effective than cyanoacrylate injection in preventing rebleeding from GVs, with similar frequencies of complications and mortalities.

Endohepatology - current status.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses the most recent studies regarding the emerging field of endohepatology - the use of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic tools for the management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: New research has shown that liver biopsy specimens obtained by each Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guidance, the percutaneous approach, and the transjugular approach contained sufficient portal triads to adequately analyzed by experienced pathologists - suggesting that any of these routes of liver biopsy is clinically acceptable; further, all had similar rates of adverse events. An initial prospective study showed that EUS guided portal pressure measurement was safe, effective, and accurate. A recent metanalysis showed that EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization was statistically more efficacious and with less complications than EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and EUS guided coil injection alone, suggesting that combination therapy appears to be the preferred approach for gastric varices (GV) bleeding. A prospective study evaluating focal liver lesions showed that the use of artificial intelligence had up to 100% sensitivity and 81% specificity for identifying malignant focal liver lesions. SUMMARY: EUS guided liver biopsy is safe and enables accurate diagnosis of underlying liver disease. EUS guided portal pressure measurement is also safe and is accurate. Combination therapy of EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization is more efficacious and has less complications than injection or coil therapy alone when used for GV bleeding. Artificial intelligence is highly sensitive and specific when used in conjunction with EUS in the diagnosis of malignant focal liver lesions. Endohepatology is a rapidly expanding field with great potential.

Update on the management of gastric varices.

Gastro-oesophageal varices are the major clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although less frequent than oesophageal varices (EV), bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is generally more severe and associated with higher mortality and a greater risk to rebleed. According to Sarin's classification, GVs are categorized into four types based on their location within the stomach and relationship with EV. Currently, treatment options for the management of GV include beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligation, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, EUS-guided coil/cyanoacrylate injection, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration. The best treatment strategy of GV remains controversial because of the heterogeneity of GV, lack of high-quality data and suboptimal trial design of the studies available. The proper treatment algorithm may require adequate endoscopic and imaging evaluation by a multidisciplinary team with multiple treatment options available. This review describes the hemodynamic features of GV, pharmacological, endoscopic and interventional radiological treatment options for GV.

Recurrent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding from Isolated Gastric Varices as Primary Symptom of Myelofibrosis: A Case Report on Combining Interventional and Pharmacologic Treatment Options.

Portal hypertension leads to pronounced venous collateralization and development of varices. Besides manifest liver cirrhosis, primarily left-sided portal hypertension is causal for the development of gastric varices. We present a case of a 36-year-old female patient with splenomegaly, underlying primary myelofibrosis, and detection of somatic Janus-kinase-2 driver-mutation JAK2V617F. Following first upper gastrointestinal bleeding, isolated gastric varices could be detected as a result of underlying left-sided portal hypertension. Within a few months, repeated life-threatening bleedings with transfusion requirements and frequent hospitalizations occurred. Despite multiple injections of cyanoacrylates, the proven therapy of choice, varices could not be stabilized. Combination of targeted JAK-inhibitor therapy in conjunction with the use of EUS-guided application of coils with subsequent cyanoacrylate injection resulted in acute and long-term bleeding control.

Safety and Efficacy of Thrombin for Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal therapy for bleeding-related gastric varices is still a controversial topic. There is a paucity of literature that comprehensively summarizes the available literature regarding safety and efficacy of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. METHODS: Four independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to October 2020, describing the use of thrombin for management of bleeding gastric varices. Primary outcomes were (1) pooled early and late rebleeding rate, (2) pooled gastric variceal related mortality rate, (3) pooled rescue therapy rate, and (4) pooled adverse event rate with the use of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. The meta-analysis was performed and the statistics were two-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the analysis after comprehensive search. This yielded a pooled early rebleeding rate of 9.3% (95% CI 4.9-17) and late rebleeding rate 13.8% (95% CI 9-20.4). Pooled rescue therapy rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 10.1% (95% CI 6.1-16.3). The pooled 6-week gastric variceal-related mortality rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 7.6% (95% CI 4.5-12.5). There were a total of four adverse events out of a total of 222 patients with pooled adverse event rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 5.6% (95% CI 2.9-10.6). CONCLUSION: In summary, the systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of thrombin for bleeding gastric varices suggest low rates of rebleeding and minimal rates of adverse events. While, early and late rebleeding rate and rescue therapy rate are similar to cyanoacrylate-based therapy, the minimal rates of adverse events are perhaps the most important benefit of thrombin. Thus, the current data suggest that thrombin is a very promising therapeutic alternative with low risk of adverse events for bleeding gastric varices.

Safety and efficacy of EUS-guided coil and glue injection for the primary prophylaxis of gastric variceal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. EUS-guided coil and cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection (EUS-CCI) has been shown to be an effective therapy in acute bleeding and secondary prophylaxis; however, there is a paucity of data on primary prophylaxis. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, adult patients with high-risk gastric varices (GV; size >10 mm or cherry red spot) without prior bleeding underwent EUS-CCI for the primary prophylaxis of GVB between June 2009 and December 2019. The primary outcome was post-treatment GVB. RESULTS: Eighty patients with a mean variceal size of 22.5 ± 9.4 mm and a mean length of follow-up of 3.0 ± 2.4 years were included. The etiology of portal hypertension was cirrhosis in 71 patients (88.7%) and noncirrhotic in 9 (11.3). The mean model for end-stage liver disease score was 12.3 ± 3.7 in patients with cirrhosis. The mean coil number was 1.5 (range, 1-3) and mean glue volume injected 2 mL (range, .5-5). Technical success was achieved in 100%, 96.7% had EUS confirmation of GV obliteration, and 67.7% were obliterated with 1 treatment session. Post-treatment GVB occurred in 2 patients (2.5%) and adverse events in 4 (4.9%). No deaths related to GVB occurred, and emergent transjugular intrahepatic shunts were not needed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk GV, EUS-CCI for primary prophylaxis is highly effective at preventing GVB with a low rate of adverse events. Primary prophylaxis of high-risk GV with coil and CYA glue injection should be considered in centers with the appropriate expertise.

Initial Experience With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Coil Placement for Pediatric Gastric Variceal Hemostasis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric variceal (GV) bleeding is among the most morbid sequelae of portal hypertension, with mortality ranging from 30% to 50%. Pediatric data focused on endoscopic approaches to management are needed. The present study represents the first pediatric case series of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil placement within feeding vessels as monotherapy for management of GV bleeding. METHODS: Using our prospectively maintained endoscopy database, we identified patients 18 years and younger who underwent EUS-guided coil placement for management of GV bleeding from 2008 to 2018. Demographics, indication, procedural interventions/findings, and available clinical outcomes data were analyzed. RESULTS: Twelve patients (median age 15, range 11-18 years) underwent EUS-guided coil placement for GV bleeding. All had portal hypertension, with EV in 58.3% and prior GV bleeding with attempted endoscopic management in 75%. Coil placement was accomplished using a linear echoendoscope and a 19-gauge needle. A mean of 2.75 (± 0.43) coils were placed in each patient (4, 6, 8, and 10 mm Nester Embolization Coils, Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in all patients, and 25% of patients developed recurrent gastric varices at a median of 5.5 months following the initial EUS-guided coil placement (range 4-6 months) over the median 12 month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The present study establishes the feasibility and efficacy of EUS-guided coil placement as monotherapy for GV bleeding in children and adolescents. The technique was technically successful, with primary hemostasis achieved in all patients. EUS-guided embolization with coils may represent an alternative to current approaches for management of highly morbid GV bleeding.

Obliteration of gastric varices guided by eco-endoscopy with coils insertion coated with expandable hydrogel polymers.

INTRODUCTION: gastric varices hemorrhage is a severe complication of portal hypertension, with high mortality rates and few management alternatives, especially when there is a contraindication to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS). The usual therapeutic options are the injection of cyanoacrylate, the insertion of coils or both. Hydrocoils are special coils coated with different types of expandable hydrogel polymers conventionally used in neurovascular interventionism. They allow rapid occlusion of vessel, forming a mesh that favors the local formation of thrombus and the development of a neointima on the gel cover. We consider the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided hydrocoil insertion in gastric varices, without using cyanoacrylate. OBJECTIVE: this study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectivity of the application of EUS-guided hydrocoils in patients with gastric varices hemorrhage with TIPS contraindication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this was a retrospective case series of four patients with TIPS contraindication after interventional radiologist evaluation. Linear echoendoscopes, fluoroscopy, 19G needles and hydrocoils (Azur®, Terumo) and Progreat® 3 Fr microcatheters were used. An interventional radiologist expert advised the procedures and endoscopic ultrasound confirmed the varix obliteration. RESULTS: technical and clinical success occurred in all patients involved in this study. There were no adverse effects related to the procedure or endoscopic equipment damage. CONCLUSIONS: the application of EUS-guided hydrocoils can be a safe and effective method in the short term for gastric varices bleeding in patients who are not candidates for TIPS. Besides, a complete obliteration of the vascular lumen could occur and thus, dispense with the use of cyanoacrylate. Further studies are needed to corroborate these preliminary results.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided deployment of embolization coils and cyanoacrylate injection in gastric varices versus coiling alone: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastric variceal bleeding is a life-threating condition with challenging management. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection versus EUS-guided coil embolization alone in the management of gastric varices. METHODS: A single-center, parallel-randomized controlled trial involving 60 participants with gastric varices (GOV II and IGV I) who were randomly allocated to EUS-guided coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection (n = 30) or EUS-guided coil embolization alone (n = 30). The primary end points were the technical and clinical success rates of both procedures. The secondary end points were the reappearance of gastric varices during follow-up, along with rebleeding, the need for reintervention, and complication and survival rates. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100 % in both groups. Immediate disappearance of varices was observed in 86.7 % of patients treated with coils and cyanoacrylate, versus 13.3 % of patients treated with coils alone (P < 0.001). Median survival time was 16.4 months with coils and cyanoacrylate versus 14.2 months with coils alone (P = 0.90). Rebleeding occurred in 3.3 % of patients treated with combined treatment and 20 % of those treated with coils alone (P = 0.04). With combined treatment, 83.3 % of patients were free from reintervention versus 60 % with coils alone (hazard ratio 0.27; 95 % confidence interval 0.095 - 0.797; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection achieved excellent clinical success, with lower rates of rebleeding and reintervention than coil treatment alone. Multicenter studies are required to define the most appropriate technique for gastric variceal obliteration.

A prospective, randomized trial of thrombin versus cyanoacrylate injection in the control of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastric variceal hemorrhage (AGVH) is a serious complication of portal hypertension. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection is standard therapy for acute hemostasis; however, it may be associated with serious complications. The role of thrombin injection has not been confirmed. This study compared endoscopic thrombin and glue injections in the hemostasis of AGVH. METHODS: 68 eligible patients with AGVH were randomized to receive thrombin injection (33 patients) or glue injection (35 patients). The primary end point was injection-induced gastric ulcers. Secondary end points were acute hemostasis, rebleeding, and mortality within 42 days. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable baseline data. Hemostasis of active bleeding at endoscopy was 90.0 % (9/10) in the thrombin group and 90.9 % (10/11) in the glue group (P = 0.58), and 48-hour hemostasis was achieved in 93.9 % (31/33) and 97.1 % (34/35), respectively (P = 0.60). Treatment failure at 5 days occurred in two patients (6.1 %) in the thrombin group and two patients (5.7 %) in the glue group (P > 0.99). Gastric ulcers occurred in none of the thrombin group and 11/30 (36.7 %) of the glue group (P < 0.001, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 8 % - 27 %). Complications occurred in 4 (12.1 %) and 18 (51.4 %) patients in the thrombin and glue groups, respectively (P < 0.001, 95 %CI 22 % - 45 %). Two patients who received glue had post-treatment gastric ulcer bleeding. One patient in each group died. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic thrombin injection was similar to glue injection in achieving successful hemostasis of AGVH. However, a higher incidence of complications may be associated with glue injection.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy versus direct endoscopic glue injection therapy for gastric varices: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric variceal bleeding carries significant mortality in the setting of portal hypertension. Among the endoscopic treatment options, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided glue and/or coil injection is a novel approach, but its role in the treatment of gastric varices is not established due to a lack of robust data. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to June 2019) to identify studies evaluating EUS in the treatment of gastric varices. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, obliteration and recurrence of gastric varices, early and late rebleeding, and adverse events with EUS-guided therapy in gastric varices. We also searched for studies that evaluated direct endoscopic glue (END-glue) injection for treatment of gastric varices, and used the pooled rates as comparators. RESULTS: 23 studies (851 patients) evaluating EUS-guided therapy were included. The pooled treatment efficacy was 93.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 89.5 - 96.3, I 2 = 53.7), gastric varices obliteration was 84.4 % (95 %CI 74.8 - 90.9, I 2 = 77), gastric varices recurrence was 9.1 % (95 %CI 5.2 - 15.7, I 2 = 32), early rebleeding was 7.0 % (95 %CI 4.6 - 10.7, I 2 = 0), and late rebleeding was 11.6 % (95 %CI 8.8 - 15.1, I 2 = 22). The rates were comparable to END-glue therapy (28 studies, 3467 patients) except for obliteration, which was significantly better with EUS-guided therapy. On subgroup analysis, EUS-coil/glue combination showed superior outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided therapy demonstrated clinical efficacy for treatment of gastric varices in terms of obliteration, recurrence, and long-term rebleeding, and may be superior to END-glue.