内镜套扎术和硬化疗法治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的比较研究

目的比较内镜套扎术(EVL)和硬化疗法(EIS)治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的疗效和安全性.方法84例肝硬化伴食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者随机分为2组,EVL组40例,EIS组44例.EVL组患者应用Stiegmann-Goff结扎设备,每次结扎间隔2周;EIS组患者在同样时间间隔内静脉内注射乙氧硬化醇.结果EVL组患者曲张静脉消除率为75.0%(30/40),EIS组为63.6%(28/44)(P＞0.05);EVL组患者曲张静脉消除期限为11.5周±6.0周,EIS组为18.0周±14.0周(P=0.036);EVL组患者出血复发率为30%(12/40),EIS组为50%(22/44)(P=0.03);EVL组5例和EIS组13例患者发生各种并发症(P＜0.005);EVL组患者食管静脉曲张复发率为52.5%(21/40),EIS组为27.3%(12/44)(P＜0.05);EVL组2例患者发生门静脉高压性胃病;EVL组7例和EIS组9例患者死亡,EVL组5例和EIS组10例患者治疗失败.结论EVL组患者食管静脉曲张消除较EIS组快,并发症发生率低,出血复发率较低但静脉曲张复发率较高,治疗后易发生门静脉高压性胃病;两组患者的死亡率和治疗失败率无显著差异,但倾向于EVL的治疗失败率较低;当选择预防静脉出血复发的内镜治疗时,EVL应为首选.     

内镜套扎联合硬化剂夹心法治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的远期疗效观察

[目的]探讨内镜下静脉曲张套扎同时应用硬化剂夹心法(套扎-硬化-套扎即EVL-EVS-EVL)治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的疗效。[方法]对23例肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血的患者采用夹心法治疗,每条曲张静脉结扎皮圈不超过3个,并在2个结扎点之间的曲张静脉内注射l~3ml硬化剂。其中10例在首次内镜治疗时接受食管静脉造影检查。于治疗后2周、1个月、3个月、6个月、12个月胃镜随访,了解静脉曲张变化情况,记录患者不良反应及并发症。[结果]10例行静脉造影检查中7例硬化剂在曲张静脉内滞留时间超过40min。夹心法控制活动性食管静脉曲张出血的止血成功率为100%,静脉曲张消除率为86.9%(20/23),再出血发生率为8.6%(2/23),随访期内静脉曲张复发率为13.0%(3/23)。[结论]夹心法能使硬化剂在曲张静脉内滞留较长时间,在一次治疗后能有效提高静脉曲张消除率,降低再出血率及静脉曲张复发率,是内镜下治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的较理想选择。     

贲门血管硬化剂注射联合套扎法治疗肝硬化重度食管静脉曲张并贲门静脉曲张的疗效观察

目的分析比较贲门血管硬化剂注射联合套扎法和单独套扎法治疗肝硬化重度食管静脉曲张并贲门静脉曲张的疗效。方法回顾性分析三六三医院2012年1月至2015年6月具有重度食管静脉曲张并贲门静脉曲张的29例肝硬化患者,分为套扎法和联合治疗法两组,比较两组近期和远期的治疗效果、再出血率、复发率、生存率以及并发症发生情况。结果联合组临床总有效率为93. 75%,显著高于EVL组的53. 85%(P 0. 05); EVL组手术完成后出现并发症3例,联合组出现2例,两组并发症发生率比较无统计学差异(P 0. 05)。经定期电话随访400 d,EVL组中再次出现活动性曲张静脉出血或具有出血征发生率为61. 54%,显著高于联合治疗组的12. 50%(P 0. 05); EVL组静脉曲张复发率为53. 85%,显著高于联合组的6. 25%(P 0. 05);联合组的死亡率为0. 00%,明显低于EVL组的38. 46%,联合组生存率显著高于EVL治疗组(P 0. 05);两组随访期间并发症发生率分别46. 15%、31. 25%(P 0. 05)。结论贲门血管硬化剂注射联合套扎法治疗肝硬化重度食管静脉曲张并贲门静脉曲张的疗效显著,能降低静脉曲张再出血率、病死率及复发率,减少并发症的发生,提高生存率,效果优于单独套扎法。     

内镜密集与非密集套扎治疗重度食管静脉曲张256例

目的:观察内镜密集套扎治疗重度食管静脉曲张的效果.方法:肝硬化门脉高压患者256例,分为2组:A组为密集套扎组130例,B组为非密集套扎组(标准组)126例.分组标准以一次套扎圈<6个为非密集套扎组,>8个为密集套扎组.采用6连发套扎器行内镜治疗.结果:A组首次平均每例患者结扎10.9个点,首次结扎2 wk后复查食管静脉曲张基本治愈(曲张静脉基本消除率)者39例,显效者有43例,有效者20例,无效者7例,总有效率93.58%.平均结扎1.6次.B组食管静脉曲张基本治愈(曲张静脉基本消除率)者7例,显效者有58例,有效者40例,无效者7例,总有效率93.75%,平均结扎2次.结论:食管静脉曲张采用密集套扎法进行连续EVL治疗,静脉曲张消失率高,减少套扎次数,是有效的治疗食管静脉曲张的可靠方法.     

内镜下套扎联合经皮经肝TH胶栓塞治疗肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张的临床应用

目的评价内镜下套扎(EVL)联合经皮经肝曲张静脉TH胶栓塞术(PTVE)治疗肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血的远期疗效。方法 44例肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张出血患者,先行食管曲张静脉的内镜下套扎治疗,1周后再行TH胶PTVE,栓塞食管胃底曲张静脉区域及其来源血管。联合治疗术后定期复查胃镜,观察曲张静脉消失情况,随访治疗后曲张静脉复发率及再出血率。结果 44例食管胃底静脉曲张患者,32例食管曲张静脉基本消失,消失率72.7%;8例胃底静脉曲张基本消失,消失率100%;12例食管静脉曲张程度明显减轻,总有效率100%。随访6~39个月,平均25.6个月,5例食管静脉曲张复发,复发率11.4%;3例再出血,再出血率6.8%。结论内镜下套扎治疗能机械性地消除食管曲张静脉,经皮经肝TH胶栓塞能栓塞食管胃底曲张静脉区域及其供血血管,二者联合能达到协同作用,具有更好的远期疗效。     

经皮经肝组织粘合剂栓塞联合内镜下套扎治疗食管静脉曲张的临床应用

目的 探讨经皮经肝组织粘合剂(TH胶)栓塞(PTVE)联合内镜下套扎(EVL)治疗食管静脉曲张的合理性和临床疗效.方法 23例食管静脉曲张患者先行PTVE使TH胶栓塞胃冠状静脉主干及胃底贲门周围静脉,1个月后对食管黏膜下曲张静脉行内镜下套扎治疗.结果 该组患者TH胶未栓塞食管下段曲张静脉,PTVE后静脉曲张缓解,但未完全消失;联合EVL后17例患者静脉曲张基本消失,消失率73.9%.21例行1次套扎治疗,2例行2次套扎治疗,平均套扎次数1.1次/例.随访3～31个月(平均19.2个月),静脉曲张复发或加重3例(13.1%),2例(8.7%)患者门脉高压性胃病出现少量出血.结论 经皮经肝TH胶栓塞能阻断冠状静脉主干、食管胃底周围血管等曲张静脉的供血血管,而内镜下套扎治疗则消除食管下段黏膜下曲张静脉,二者联合可优势互补,从而取得更好的远期疗效.     

内镜下治疗食管静脉曲张出血及预防复发的临床研究

前瞻性研究内镜下重复注射硬化剂疗法 (EIS)及联合应用内镜下套扎术 (EVL EIS)两种治疗方法的安全性、疗效、并发症和复发率。方法　 51例肝硬化患者符合研究对象 ,随机分为两组 :A组 (EIS组 ) 2 5例 ,B组 (EVL EIS组 ) 2 6例 ,前组每周重复使用 1%乙氧硬化醇行EIS治疗 ,直至所有曲张静脉均消失 ,后组第一次行EVL ,1周后每周行EIS治疗。结果　EIS及EVL EIS两组中 ,食管曲张静脉消失率分别为 84 %和 76.9% ,治疗次数分别为 ( 4.2±1.6)次和 ( 3 .0± 0 .4 )次 ,住院时间分别为 ( 4.6± 1.4 )周和 ( 4.5± 1.1)周 ,都无显著性差异。硬化剂使用总量B组显著低于A组 ,分别为 ( 2 2 .6± 8.2 )ml和 ( 42± 10 .5)ml,(P <0 .0 1)。在治疗期间并发症的发生率B组显著低于A组 (P <0 .0 1)。胃镜随访发现食管下端形成环形溃疡和继发性瘢痕 ,其发生率B组较A组为低 ,分别为 2 0 %和 90 .5% ,差异有显著性 (P <0 .0 1)。在平均 12 .5个月的随访中 ,食管静脉曲张复发率B组显著高于A组 ,分别为 4 0 %和 9.5% ,(P <0 .0 5)。结论　EVL EIS组并发症较少 ,而EIS组在预防静脉曲张复发方面较EVL EIS组更为优越     

“U型”反转套扎技术在食管胃静脉曲张治疗中的应用

目的评价“U型”反转套扎技术治疗食管胃静脉曲张的疗效。方法将191例食管胃静脉曲张患者随机分为2组：内镜下常规套扎（EVL）组101例行内镜下常规套扎;内镜下反转套扎（EVLR）组90例先行反转镜环周套扎贲门下曲张静脉,而后常规套扎食管。观察术后18个月内曲张静脉治疗效果、平均治疗次数、急诊止血率、近期再出血率及静脉曲张复发率等。结果随访期内,治疗后显效率、无效率,平均治疗次数,2组差异均有统计学意义（P均〈0．05）,EVLR组明显优于EVL组,且EVLR组急诊止血率可达100％。但近期再出血率、静脉曲张复发率、并发症发生率、病死率与EVL组相比,差异均无统计学意义（P均〉0．05）。结论经反转镜贲门下环周套扎法可以提高食管胃静脉曲张破裂急诊止血率,较常规套扎显效率高,治疗次数少,安全性高。     

食管静脉曲张硬化与结扎加硬化治疗食管静脉曲张的对照研究

目的研究食管静脉曲张硬化与结扎防治出血的效果.方法60例乙型病毒性肝炎肝硬化、食管静脉曲张出血的病人分为两组,食管静脉硬化治疗(EVS)组30例,食管静脉结扎加硬化治疗(EVL+EVS)组30例,结果在EVS组和EVL+EVS组中,静脉曲张消失和基本消失者分别为28例(90%)和30例(100%),两组比较无显著差异.达到静脉曲张消失所需硬化治疗次数及硬化剂所用量,EVL+EVS组均明显少于EVS组,两组并发症发生率无显著差异.EVS组随访26.9±4.5个月,EVL+EVS组22.7±5.3个月,随访期食管静脉曲张复发率EVS、EVL+EVS组分别为9例(30%)和13例(43.3%),EVL+EVS组高于EVS组,反复出血分别为4例和3例.住院天数EVS组和EVL+EVS组分别为27.1±5.0和28.8±9.2天,两组无显著差异.所消耗结扎器、硬化剂和手术费用EVS组和EVL+EVS组分别为5378.50±899.00元和7703.33±2120.70元,两组比较P＜0.001,EVL+EVS组明显高于EVS组,结论本研究提示EVL+EVS较单一EVS无明显优越性.     

ʳ��Ϊ�о�������������������Ѫ���ھ�������

肝硬化是我国的常见病 ,无食管胃底曲张静脉的肝硬化患者 ,每年有5 %～ 15 %出现曲张静脉 ,曲张静脉一旦形成 ,每年增粗约 4 %～ 10 % ,最终所有的肝硬化患者都会出现食管胃底静脉曲张。约 1/ 3的食管胃底曲张静脉患者出现曲张静脉破裂出血 ,每次出血的病死率达 2 0 %～30 % ,未经治疗的患者一年内因出血致死的几率可达70 %。首次出血后 6周之内会发生再次出血 ,4 8h之内是再次出血的高峰时间。内镜下进行食管静脉曲张的硬化剂注射治疗 (EIS)、内镜下食管静脉曲张套扎治疗 (EVL)、组织粘合剂注射治疗以及联合治疗方法的出现 ,使我们有能…     

EVS、EVS+EVL续贯EVS和EVL续贯EVS治疗食管静脉曲张的疗效比较

目的:比较内镜下食管静脉曲张硬化治疗(EVS)、EVS EVS加套扎(EVL)续贯EVS和EVL续贯EVS治疗食管静脉曲张的疗效.方法:乙型病毒性肝炎肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者130例,随机分为EVS治疗组50例,EVS EVL续贯EVS组40例,EVL续贯EVS组40例,比较3组食管静脉曲张的消失率、并发症、硬化剂总用量,患者住院天数和远期复发出血率.结果:三组患者治疗后食管静脉曲张消失率无差异;EVS组硬化剂应用总量、治疗次数和住院天数都高于EVS EVL续贯EVS组,EVL续贯EVS组(95.64±37.51 mL vs 55.90±38.93 mL,32.15±26.97 mL;3.64±1.32 vs 1.85±1.18,1.35±0.88;25.92±8.69 vs 20.6±5.00 d,17.55±4.62 d;P均<0.05),而后两组之间没有差异;EVL续贯EVS组食管静脉曲张复发率高于另外两组(45% vs 12%,20%,P<0.05),而后两组间没有差异.3组间再出血发生率及并发症的发生率没有差别.结论:EVL续贯EVS和EVS EVL续贯EVS在食管静脉曲张的治疗上优于单纯EVS,尤其后者兼具EVL和EVS的优点.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol versus endoscopic variceal ligation alone in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of propranolol in addition to EVL in the prevention of first variceal bleed has not been evaluated. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with propranolol and EVL alone in the prevention of first variceal bleed among patients with high-risk varices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and forty-four consecutive patients with high-risk varices were randomly allocated to EVL plus propranolol (Gr I, n = 72) or EVL alone (Gr II, n = 72). EVL was done at 2-wk interval till obliteration of varices. In Gr I, incremental dosage of propranolol (sufficient to reduce heart rate to 55 beats/min or 25% reduction from baseline) was administered and continued after obliteration of varices. The endpoints of the study were bleeding and death. RESULTS: The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics; follow-up (Gr I: 13.1 +/- 11.5 months, Gr II: 11.2 +/- 9.9 months), number of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic portal hypertension patients [Gr I 64 (88.6%) and 8 (11.4%), Gr II 63 (87.5%) and 9 (12.5%)], and frequency of Child's A (15 vs 18), B (38 vs 35), and C (19 vs 19). The mean daily propranolol dose achieved in Gr I was 95.6 +/- 38.6 mg. Eleven patients had bleeds, 5 in Gr I and 6 in Gr II. All patients bled before the obliteration of varices, the actuarial probability of first bleed at 20 months was 7% in Gr I and 11% in Gr II (p= 0.72). Six patients died in the combination and 8 in EVL group. All deaths in Gr I were due to nonbleed-related causes, while in Gr II, 2 deaths were bleed related, the actuarial probability of death at 20 months was 8% and 15%, respectively (p= 0.37). The probability of bleed-related death was comparable (p= 0.15). At the end of follow-up, 4 patients in Gr I and 11 in Gr II had recurrence of varices (p= 0.03). Side effects on propranolol were seen in 22% patients, in 8% it had to be stopped. There were no serious complications of EVL. CONCLUSIONS: Both EVL plus propranolol and EVL alone are effective in primary prophylaxis of bleed from high-risk varices. Addition of propranolol does not decrease the probability of first bleed or death in patients on EVL. However, the recurrence of varices is lower if propranolol is added to EVL.     

Successful hemostasis of intractable rectal variceal bleeding using variceal embolization

Portal hypertension causes portosystemic shunting along the gastrointestinal tract,resulting in gastrointestinalvarices.Rectal varices and their bleeding is a rare complication,but it can be fatal without appropriate treatment.However,because of its rarity,no established treatment strategy is yet available.In the setting of intractable rectal variceal bleeding,a transjugular intravenous portosystemic shunt can be a treatment of choice to enable portal decompression and thus achieve hemostasis.However,in the case of recurrent rectal variceal bleeding despite successful transjugular intravenous portosystemic shunt,alternative measures to control bleeding are required.Here,we report on a patient with liver cirrhosis who experienced recurrent rectal variceal bleeding even after successful transjugular intravenous portosystemic shunt and was successfully treated with variceal embolization.     

肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血序贯治疗的临床应用价值

目的 评价曲张静脉套扎术(EVL)+不同硬化剂曲张静脉硬化术(EVS)序贯治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血的疗效及安全性.方法 回顾性总结314例肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血内镜治疗患者的临床资料,包括单纯EVL治疗者112例(EVL组)、单纯鱼肝油酸钠硬化治疗者48例(EVS1组)、单纯聚桂醇硬化治疗者40例(EVS2组)、套扎+鱼肝油酸钠硬化序贯治疗者26例(EVLS1组)、套扎+聚桂醇硬化序贯治疗者88例(EVLS2组),统计各组曲张静脉治疗有效率、静脉曲张复发率、并发症发生率并进行对比分析.结果 EVL组、EVS1组、EVS2组、EVIS1组、EVLS2组曲张静脉治疗有效率比较差异均无统计学意义[85.7％ (96/112)、83.3％ (40/48)、92.5％ (37/40)、92.3％(24/26)、94.3％ (83/88),P＞0.05],但EVLS1组和EVLS2组曲张静脉完全消失率均明显高于其他3组[88.5％(23/26)和87.5％(77/88)比58.0％(65/112)、62.5％(30/48)、70.0％(28/40),P＜0.05],而EVLS1组与EVLS2组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).EVS1组再出血率最高(18.8％,9/48) (P ＜0.05),其次是EVL组(11.6％,13/112),均高于EVS2组、EVLS1组和EVLS2组[7.5％(3/40)、7.7％ (2/26)、6.8％ (6/88),P＜0.05],后3组再出血率相似(P＞0.05).治疗后随访6 ～18个月,EVL组静脉曲张复发26例(23.2％,26/112),EVS1组复发8例(16.7％,8/48),EVS2组复发6例(15.0％,6/40),EVLS1组复发4例(15.4％,4/26),EVLS2组复发9例(10.2％,9/88);EVL组复发率最高(P＜0.05),EVLS2组复发率最低(P＜0.05),EVS1组、EVS2组和EVLS1组复发率相似(P＞0.05).EVS1组总体并发症发生率(32.2％,49/152)明显高于其他4组(P＜0.05),而EVL组(14.5％,32/220)、EVLS2组(19.6％,22/112)、EVLS1组(22.7％,25/110)、EVLS2组(15.8％,34/229)4组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 EVL+鱼肝油酸钠EVS或+聚桂醇EVS序贯治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血是安全而有效的,尤以EVL+聚桂醇EVS序贯治疗效果显著,有可能成为治疗食管静脉曲张出血并防止再出血的最佳选择.     

急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血的比较

目的比较食管静脉曲张破裂出血急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗的疗效和安全性。方法对210例食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者,急诊情况下行内镜下套扎或硬化治疗,并分析比较两组急诊止血成功率、近期再出血率、急诊治疗曲张静脉消失率、不良反应、并发症、病死率等情况。结果急诊止血成功率套扎组达95.4%,硬化组达96.0%;近期再出血率分别为4.8%和4.1%;套扎组急诊治疗曲张静脉消失率明显优于硬化组（P〈0.01）。两组不良反应、并发症及病死率无差别。临床疗效与肝功能呈正相关。结论急诊内镜下套扎与硬化治疗食管静脉曲张出血均为有效、安全的止血方法。临床上可结合患者实际情况综合考虑后选择。     

内镜套扎术在治疗食管静脉曲张破裂出血中的临床应用价值

目的探讨内镜下食管静脉曲张套扎术（EVL）治疗和预防肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张破裂出血的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2008-01～2012-01该院142例肝硬化食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者,其中行EVL治疗74例（治疗组）,内科保守治疗68例（对照组）,并对其临床疗效进行随访观察。结果所有患者随访6个月以上,治疗组的早期再出血率、迟发出血率、曲张静脉好转率、复发率、手术率及病死率均低于对照组（P〈0.05或〈0.01）。结论 EVL能有效地降低肝硬化门脉高压患者食管静脉曲张的程度,降低再出血率、复发率、手术率和病死率,是一种有效的内镜治疗手段。     

Dislodgement of variceal bands after esophageal balloon tamponade for variceal bleeding

A 43-year-old male with alcoholic cirrhosis underwent EGD for hematemesis which revealed bleeding, grade II, lower esophageal varices that were endoscopically ligated with 6 bands. All the bands remained attached to varices at the completion of EGD. Despite apparent initial hemostasis, balloon tamponade was performed one hour later for suspected continued bleeding. Due to suspected continuing bleeding, EGD was repeated 4 h after initial EGD, and 3 h after balloon tamponade. This EGD revealed the esophageal varices; none of the bands remaining on esophageal mucosa; multiple mucosal stigmata likely from trauma at initial site of variceal bands before dislodgement; and 3 dislodged bands in gastric body, duodenal bulb, or descending duodenum. The patient expired 17 h thereafter from hypovolemic shock. This single report may suggest an apparently novel, balloon tamponade complication: dislodgement of previously placed, endoscopic bands. The proposed pathophysiology is release of bands by stretching entrapped, esophageal mucosa during esophageal balloon tamponade. This complication, if confirmed, might render balloon tamponade a less desirable option very soon after band ligation.     

Acute variceal bleeding

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a frequent complication of cirrhosis. Mortality from a variceal bleeding episode has decreased in the last 2 decades from 40% to 15 to 20% due to the implementation of effective treatments and improvement in the general medical care. Initial treatment should include adequate fluid resuscitation and transfusion to maintain hemoglobin around 7 to 8 g/dL, and prophylactic antibiotics (norfloxacin or ceftriaxone). It is currently recommended that a vasoactive drug be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected. Vasoactive therapy should be maintained for up to 5 days to prevent early rebleeding. Where available, terlipressin, a vasopressin derivative, is the preferred agent because of its safety profile; it represents the only drug with proven efficacy in improving survival. Somatostatin and octreotide are used and are as effective as terlipressin in control of bleeding but have not been shown to reduce mortality. Endoscopic therapy must be performed within the first 12 hours after admission when the patient is stable. Variceal band ligation is the recommended endoscopic treatment, but injection sclerotherapy is an alternative if band ligation is technically difficult. Despite this standard of care, 10 to 20% of patients may still exhibit initial failure to control bleeding or early rebleeding within the first 5 days. In failures to control bleeding the use of rescue transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) using covered stents is the best alternative. In mild early rebleeding a second course of endoscopic therapy may be attempted. If rebleeding is severe, placement of TIPS using covered stents is the first-choice rescue treatment. In refractory variceal bleeding episodes, balloon tamponade may be used as a temporary bridge to TIPS. Identification of patients that are at high risk of treatment failure may guide new strategies to improve outcomes. Indeed, a recent trial has shown that placement of TIPS, using covered stents, within 72 hours of admission in patients at high risk of treatment failure (i.e., those Child B with active bleeding or Child C less than 14 points) markedly decreased rebleeding and improved survival.     

Prevention of variceal rebleeding

CONTEXT: Variceal bleeding is the most frequent severe complication of portal hypertension and a leading cause of death and liver transplantation in patients with cirrhosis. Patients surviving a variceal bleed are at high risk of rebleeding (over 60% at 1 year). Portacaval shunts and transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS) are effective for prevention of rebleeding but carry a high risk of hepatic encephalopathy. Endoscopic techniques include band ligation (EBL) and injection sclerotherapy (EIS). Drug approaches are based on non-selective beta blocker with or without isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN). STARTING POINT: David Patch and colleagues (Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 1013-19) randomised 102 patients surviving a variceal bleeding to EBL or drug therapy with propranolol with the addition of ISMN if target reductions in portal pressure (evaluated by the hepatic venous pressure-gradient [HVPG]) were not achieved at 3 months. Overall, results of drug therapy were similar to those of EBL (44% vs 54% rebleeding at 1 year). There were no differences in survival or non-bleeding complications. Christophe Bureau and colleagues (Hepatology 2002; 36: 1361-66) treated 34 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension with propranolol and measured HVPG after a median of 4 days. Target HVPG reductions were achieved in 13 "responders". ISMN was added in the 21 "non-responders" and HVPG measured again: seven more patients achieved target HPVG reduction. Re-bleeding rates were lower in responders than in non-responders (10% vs 64%). Both studies suggest that drug therapy can be improved by adding ISMN to b blockers in those patients with an insufficient decrease in HVPG. WHERE NEXT? Long-term drug therapy is emerging as effective treatment for the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The role of HVPG monitoring as a guide to identifying patients requiring further treatment needs to be further evaluated. Trials to determine the best treatment for patients who do not respond to drug therapies are also required.