A new technique of combined endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation for variceal bleeding

AIM: To develop a technique of combined endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation (ESL) in which both techniques of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) can be optimally used. METHODS: ESL was performed in 10 patients (age 46.4+/-7.9; 9 males, 1 female) with cirrhosis of liver using sclerotherapy needle and Speedband, Superview multiple band ligater (Boston Scientific, Microvasive, Watertown, MA). A single band was placed 5-10 cm proximal to the gastro-esophageal junction over each varix from proximal to distal margin, followed by intravariceal injection of 1.5 % ethoxysclerol (4 ml each) 2 to 3 cm proximal to the gastroesophageal junction on the ligated varices distal to deployed band. EVL was then performed at the injection site. Similarly other varices were also injected and ligated from distal to proximally. In the subsequent sessions, ES alone was performed to sclerose small varices at the gastroesophageal junction. RESULTS: ESL was successfully performed in all patients. A median of 3 (ESL 1, ES 2) sessions (ranged 1-4) were required to eradicate the varices in 9 (90 %) of 10 patients. Recurrence of varices without bleed was seen in 1 patient during a mean follow-up of 10.3 months (ranged 6-15). Two patients died of liver failure. None died of variceal bleeding. None of the patients had procedure related complications. CONCLUSION: ESL may be useful in the fast eradication of esophageal varices. However, randomised controlled trials are required to find out its relative efficacy and impact on variceal recurrence in comparison to ES or EVL.     

Efficacy of absolute alcohol injection compared with band ligation in the eradication of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sclerotherapy is an absolute indication for treating esophageal varices. Re-bleeding is common during the treatment period, before all varices become eradicated. AIM: To compare two techniques of endoscopic esophageal varices eradication: sclerotherapy with absolute alcohol and banding ligation. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Forty-six patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices were prospectively randomized into two treatment groups: endoscopic sclerotherapy with absolute alcohol and banding ligation. Patients were included if they had large varices with signs of high bleeding risk. Informed writing consent was obtained from every patient and the Ethics Committee of Federal University of S?o Paulo, SP, Brazil, approved the study. After eradication, all patients were followed up to 1 year to look for re-bleeding episodes and variceal recurrence. RESULTS: Both groups were similar except that male gender was more common in the sclerotherapy group. There was no statistical difference regarding variceal eradication (78.3% in sclerotherapy group vs 73.9% in the ligation group), recurrence (26.7% vs 42.9%, respectively) and death related to any cause (21.7% vs 13.9%). In the sclerotherapy group more sessions were need to obtain complete variceal eradication. In this group we did observe a high re-bleeding rate (34.8%) and more ulcers associated with retrosternal pain right after the procedure. There was no difference regarding overall morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Banding ligation requires fewer sessions than sclerotherapy with absolute alcohol to eradicate esophageal varices. Both methods are equally efficient regarding variceal eradication and recurrence during a short follow-up period.     

Variceal ligation plus nadolol compared with ligation for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding: a multicenter trial

beta-Blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be valuable methods in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of EVL combined with nadolol versus EVL alone as secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Patients admitted for acute variceal bleeding were treated during emergency endoscopy with EVL or sclerotherapy and received somatostatin for 5 days. At that point, patients were randomized to receive EVL plus nadolol or EVL alone. EVL sessions were repeated every 10 to 12 days until the varices were eradicated. Eighty patients with cirrhosis (alcoholic origin in 66%) were included (Child-Turcotte-Pugh A, 15%; B, 56%; C, 29%). The median follow-up period was 16 months (range, 1-24 months). The variceal bleeding recurrence rate was 14% in the EVL plus nadolol group and 38% in the EVL group (P = .006). Mortality was similar in both groups: five patients (11.6%) died in the combined therapy group and four patients (10.8%) died in the EVL group. There were no significant differences in the number of EVL sessions to eradicate varices: 3.2 +/- 1.3 in the combined therapy group versus 3.5 +/- 1.3 in the EVL alone group. The actuarial probability of variceal recurrence at 1 year was lower in the EVL plus nadolol group (54%) than in the EVL group (77%; P = .06). Adverse effects resulting from nadolol were observed in 11% of the patients. In conclusion, nadolol plus EVL reduces the incidence of variceal rebleeding compared with EVL alone. A combined treatment could lower the probability of variceal recurrence after eradication.     

Prospective multicenter randomized trial comparing banding ligation with sclerotherapy of esophageal varices.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic variceal banding ligation (EVL), first described by Stiegmann in 1988, is now an accepted alternative to sclerotherapy (EVS) for esophageal varices with previous bleeding. However, results are conflicting in terms of complications, eradication, recurrence, rebleeding and mortality rate. We aimed to compare EVL with EVS in a prospective randomized trial in patients with previous esophageal bleeding proved by endoscopy. End points were rebleeding rate and death during a short (eradication period) or long-term follow-up (> 1 year). METHODOLOGY: One hundred patients (50 EVL, 50 EVS) were enrolled. Eradication rate, number of treatments needed to achieve eradication, recurrence of varices, rebleeding and complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the two groups regarding age, sex and Child class. One patient dropped out in the EVL group and 6 in the EVS group. Eradication was obtained in 44 (88%) with EVL and 41 (82%) with EVS with a mean of 3.41 and 5.29 treatments (p<0.001), respectively. Rebleeding occurred during eradication in 6 patients (12%) in the EVL group and 21 (42%) in the EVS group (p=0.001); after eradication, 7 patients (14%) rebled in the EVL group and 4 (8%) in the EVS group (not significant). Non-variceal bleeding was observed in 5 patients (2 EVL and 3 EVS) during follow-up. Two patients in the EVL group died after variceal rebleeding; 3 died of gastric bleeding; and, 15 from non-hemorrhagic events (8 EVL and 7 EVS). In the EVL group 14 patients had recurrent varices and 7 rebled; in the EVS group 11 recurred, with rebleeding in 5. Major complications were fewer in the EVL group (1 stenosis, 4 chronic ulcers) compared to 18 patients in the EVS group (9 stenosis and 9 chronic ulcers) (p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: EVL might be preferable to EVS for faster reduction and obliteration of varices, with a lower rate of complications and rebleeding before eradication. No differences were observed in recurrence.     

Comparison of characteristics of recurrent esophageal varices after endoscopic ligation versus endoscopic ligation plus sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The characteristics of recurrent esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) versus EVL alone, including the number of additional treatments and patterns of recurrence have been compared. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-four patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices were treated by EVL alone (EVL group), and 46 patients were treated by EVL followed by extravariceal injection sclerotherapy (EVL+extraEIS group). RESULTS: Fewer treatment sessions were needed (p<0.005), and more O-rings were required (p<0.0001) in the EVL group than in the EVL+extraEIS group. The 1- and 3-year cumulative recurrence rates were higher in the EVL group (81.3% and 93.8%) than in the EVL+extraEIS group (62.8% and 91.5%) (p<0.05). Endoscopic examination at first recurrence showed varices of a more severe form (p<0.001), but less frequently having the red color sign (p<0.0001), and intramucosal venous dilatation (p<0.0001) in the EVL group than in the EVL+extraEIS group. The number of rehospitalizations for additional treatment was lower (p<0.0001) and more patients could be managed with only endoscopic treatment for recurrent varices in the EVL group than in the EVL+extraEIS group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Even if the overall rate of variceal recurrence was higher, fewer treatment sessions were needed, and the number of rehospitalizations for these additional treatments was lower in the EVL group than in the EVL+extraEIS group. Multiple sessions of EVL are an effective strategy for the treatment of esophageal varices.     

Comparison of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy with sequential endoscopic band ligation plus low-dose sclerotherapy for secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy and band ligation both have certain limitations such as, respectively, esophageal complications and early recurrence of varices. METHODS: From February 1994 to March 1996, all consecutive patients with portal hypertension due to either cirrhosis or noncirrhotic portal fibrosis and a history of variceal bleeding were included in a prospective study and randomly assigned to receive either endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy alone or endoscopic variceal band ligation plus low-dose endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy. RESULTS: Of 69 patients, 34 were randomly assigned to receive endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy alone; 35 received endoscopic variceal band ligation plus endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy. Complete variceal eradication rates (85% vs. 80%) and the number of endoscopic sessions required for eradication (6.61 +/- 2.94 vs. 7.85 +/- 3.31) were similar in the endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy and endoscopic variceal band ligation plus endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy groups, respectively. The mean volume of sclerosant required in the combined group (54.94 +/- 33.74 mL) was significantly less than that in the endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy group (81.91 +/- 34.80 mL). The complication and recurrent bleeding rates were significantly higher in the endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy group than those in the combined group (20% and 16% vs. 3% and 3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy and endoscopic variceal band ligation plus endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy were comparable in eradicating varices but the combined technique was associated with significantly lower complication and recurrent bleeding rates.     

Recurrence of esophageal varices following endoscopic treatment and its impact on rebleeding: comparison of sclerotherapy and ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic variceal ligation is superior to sclerotherapy because of its lower rebleeding and complication rates. However, ligation is not without drawbacks due to a higher tendency to variceal recurrence. We conducted a randomized cohort study to delineate the long-term history of variceal recurrence following ligation and sclerotherapy, and to clarify the impact of recurrence on rebleeding and on the consumption of endoscopic treatment resources. METHODS: Two hundred cirrhotic patients with esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to undergo maintenance endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy or ligation. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients achieved variceal eradication and were regularly followed up for 2.2 to 6.7 (mean: 5.1 +/- 1.2) years. The demographic data, hepatic reserve, bleeding severity, and endoscopic features of both sclerotherapy (n=70) and ligation (n=71) showed no difference. Forty (57.1%) patients who underwent sclerotherapy experienced 58 recurrences of esophageal varices, in contrast to the 46 (64.8%) patients who underwent ligation and experienced 81 episodes of recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that within 2 years variceal recurrence was more frequent for ligation than sclerotherapy, and the difference decreased thereafter. Multiple recurrence appeared more common with ligation (1/2/3/4/5 episodes of recurrence: 46/23/8/3/1 vs. 40/14/3/1/0, p=0.08). On multifactorial analysis, the endoscopic treatment method and red wale markings were the two factors determining variceal recurrence. Rebleeding from recurrent esophageal varices was unusual and showed no difference between the two groups (7/58 vs. 6/81, p>0.05). Rebleeding from gastric varices was more common after eradication by sclerotherapy (7/19 vs. 1/16, p=0.085) than by ligation. The number of sessions required for eradication of recurrent varices was no different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrence and multiple recurrence of esophageal varices are more likely in patients undergoing endoscopic ligation, compared to sclerotherapy; however, the recurrence did not lead to a higher risk of rebleeding or require more endoscopic treatment.     

Effects of Esophageal Varice Eradication on Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy and Fundal Varices: A Retrospective and Comparative Study

Esophageal varice eradication results in gastric hemodynamic changes. The aim of this study was to detect the influence of variceal eradication on portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) and fundal varices and to compare the results of two therapeutic methods (endoscopic variceal ligation and endoscopic sclerotherapy). A total of 114 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who underwent elective endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) (85 patients) or endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) (29 patients) for obliteration of esophageal varices were selected for this study. Both groups were compared for PHG and fundal varice formation before and after eradication. Fifty-eight (68.2%) patients in the EVL and 18 (62.1%) patients in the EST group had PHG before esophageal varice eradication (P > 0.05). PHG grade after eradication of esophageal varices by both EVL and EST was significantly higher compared to pre-eradication. PHG grade and aggregation were similar in both groups. Thirty-seven patients (34 F₁, 3 F₂) in the EVL group and 13 patients (10 F₁, 3 F₂) in the EST group had fundal varices before variceal eradication (P > 0.05). Fundal varices were detected in 46 (35 F₁, 11F₂) and 19 (11F₁, 8F₂) patients in the EVL and EST groups after eradication, respectively. There was a statistically significant increment in occurrence of fundal varices after eradication with EVL and EST groups. There was no significant difference regarding fundal varice development after esophageal variceal eradication in both groups. After varical eradication, PHG was found in 57 (87.7%) and 39 (79.6%) patients with and without fundal varices, respectively (P > 0.05). Esophageal eradication with EVL and EST increases both the incidence and the severity of PHG and fundal varice formation. Both methods have comparable influences on PHG and fundal varices.     

Evaluation of endoscopic variceal ligation in prophylactic therapy for bleeding of oesophageal varices: a prospective, controlled trial compared with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in prophylactic therapy for oesophageal varices, we performed a randomized prospective trial to compare the recurrence of oesophageal varices treated by EVL with those treated by endoscopic injection sclerotherapy. METHODS: Fifty patients with liver cirrhosis were divided into two groups at random, after informed consents were obtained, to receive prophylactic therapy for bleeding of oesophageal varices. Group 1 patients underwent sessions of sclerotherapy with 5% ethanolamine oleate used as the sclerosant. Group 2 patients underwent EVL followed by one or two sessions of sclerotherapy. RESULTS: During the 18 month follow-up period, both the recurrence rate in group 2 (56%) and the incidence of bleeding (20%) were significantly higher compared with group 1 (recurrence rate 16%, bleeding 0%). CONCLUSIONS: This result indicates that EVL is not effective for prophylactic therapy for oesophageal varices in liver cirrhosis.     

Effect of intravariceal sclerotherapy combined with esophageal mucosal sclerotherapy using small-volume sclerosant for cirrhotic patients with high variceal pressure

AIM: To explore the effect of intravariceal-mucosal sclerotherapy using small dose of sclerosant on the recurrence of esophageal varices.METHODS: We randomly assigned 38 cirrhotic patients with previous variceal bleeding and high variceal pressure (> 15.2 mmHg) to receive endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and combined intravariceal and esophageal mucosal sclerotherapy (combined group) using small-volume sclerosant. The end-points of the study were rebleeding and recurrence of esophageal varices.RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 16 mo, varices recurred in 1 patient in the combined group as compared with 7 patients in the EVL group (P = 0.045). Rebleeding occurred in 3 patients in the EVL group as compared with 1 patient in the combined group (P = 0.687). No patient died in the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to serious adverse events.CONCLUSION: Intravariceal-mucosal sclerotherapy using small dose of sclerosant is more effective than EVL in decreasing the incidence of variceal recurrence for cirrhotic patients.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation compared with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage:A meta-analysis

AIM:To compare the effect of endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL)with that of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy(EIS)in the treatment of patients withesophageal variceal bleeding.METHODS:We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases.Metaanalysis was conducted to evaluate risk ratio(RR)and95%confidence interval(CI)of combined studies for the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding between EVL and EIS.RESULTS:Fourteen studies comprising 1236 patients were included in the meta-analysis.The rebleeding rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group(RR=0.68,95%CI:0.57-0.81).The variceal eradication rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group(RR=1.06,95%CI:1.01-1.12).There was no significant difference about mortality rate between the EVL group and EIS group(RR=0.95,95%CI:0.77-1.17).The rate of complications in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group(RR=0.28,95%CI:0.13-0.58).CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis has found that EVL is better than EIS in terms of the lower rates of rebleeding,complications,and the higher rate of variceal eradication.Therefore,EVL is the first choice for esophageal variceal bleeding.     

Improved Prognosis of Cirrhosis Patients with Esophageal Varices and Thrombocytopenia Treated by Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Plus Partial Splenic Embolization

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the combination of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and partial splenic embolization (PSE) compared with EVL alone in cirrhosis patients with thrombocytopenia. In a prospective study, 84 cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 50,000/mm(3)) underwent EVL plus PSE (N = 42) or EVL alone (N = 42). Primary end points assessed during the follow-up period included the recurrence of varices, progression to variceal bleeding, and death. Comparison between combined treatment and variceal ligation alone by multivariate analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.44 for the recurrence of varices (P = 0.02), 0.19 for progression to variceal bleeding (P = 0.01), and 0.31 for death (P = 0.04). These results suggest that the combination of EVL plus PSE can prevent the recurrence of varices, progression to variceal bleeding, and death in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.     

食管静脉曲张破裂出血内镜下介入治疗

目的总结３６４例肝炎后肝硬化合并食管静脉曲张破裂出血患者进行内镜下介入疗法的经验。方法内镜下采用５％鱼肝油酸钠（ＳＭ）或１％乙氧硬化醇（ＡＳ）进行食管静脉曲张硬化治疗（ＥＶＳ），六连发圈套器结扎治疗（ＥＶＬ）和医ＭＴＨ胶或凝血酶食管静脉内栓塞治疗（ＥＶＥ）。结果三种介入方法平均急诊止血率为８９．９％；食管静脉消失率为７７．２％。结论内镜下介入疗法是控制食管静脉曲张出血，消除食管静脉曲张的有效方法，操作较容易，再出血率较低；ＥＶＬ可替代ＥＶＳ作为食管静脉曲张破裂出血首选方法。ＥＶＥ法有异位栓塞之虑，目前暂不宜广泛开展。     

Endoscopic variceal ligation is a sufficient procedure for the treatment of oesophageal varices in patients with hepatitis C liver cirrhosis: comparison with injection sclerotherapy

AIMS: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a recently developed alternative to endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for the treatment of oesophageal varices. Endoscopic variceal ligation and EIS were compared in an attempt to clarify the efficacy and safety of EVL for patients with cirrhosis due to hepatitis C. METHODS: Endoscopic variceal ligation was performed in 60 patients and EIS in 30. Varices were eradicated in all patients by EVL and 87% (26 out of 30) by EIS. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between EVL and EIS in relation to the incidence of bleeding and the 5 year survival rate after treatment. There were no severe complications except mild substernal pain after EVL, while pulmonary embolism occurred in one patient receiving EIS. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic variceal ligation is a safe and effective technique for eradicating oesophageal varices in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis.     

Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for bleeding esophageal varices in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction

Endoscopic sclerotherapy is an effective treatment for bleeding esophageal varices, but it is associated with significant complications. Endoscopic ligation, a new form of endoscopic treatment for bleeding varices, has been shown to be superior to sclerotherapy in adult patients with cirrhosis. To determine the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation, the 2 methods were compared in a randomized control trial in 49 children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction who had proven bleeding from esophageal varices. Twenty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 25 with band ligation. No significant differences were found between the sclerotherapy and ligation groups in arresting active index bleeding (100% each) and achieving variceal eradication (91.7% vs. 96%, P =.61). Band ligation eradicated varices in fewer endoscopic sessions than did sclerotherapy (3.9 +/- 1.1 vs. 6.1 +/- 1.7, respectively, P <.0001). The rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy group (25% vs. 4%, P =.049), as was the rate of major complications (25% vs. 4%, P =.049). After eradication, esophageal variceal recurrence was not significantly different in patients treated by ligation than by sclerotherapy (17.4% vs. 10%, P =.67). In conclusion, variceal band ligation in children is a safe and effective technique that achieves variceal eradication more quickly, with a lower rebleeding rate and fewer complications compared with sclerotherapy.     

Endoscopic ligation vs. sclerotherapy in adults with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sclerotherapy is a well-established treatment for bleeding esophageal varices, although it has a substantial complication rate. A prospective randomized trial was conducted to determine whether endoscopic variceal ligation is safer and more effective than sclerotherapy in adults with bleeding esophageal varices because of extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent sclerotherapy and 37 had band ligation. RESULTS: Ligation and sclerotherapy were equally effective for achieving variceal eradication (94.6% vs. 91.7%, respectively; p=0.67). However, ligation achieved eradication with fewer endoscopic sessions (3.7 [1.2] vs. 7.7 [3.3]; p <0.0001) and within a shorter time interval (50.1 [17.7] days vs. 99 [54.8] days; p <0.0001). In the ligation group, recurrent bleeding was less frequent (2.7% vs. 19.4%; p=0.028; however, Bonferroni correction for multiple testing removes this significance) and the rate of major complications was lower (2.7% vs. 22.2%; p=0.014). Total cost per patient was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy vs. the ligation group ($216.6 [71.8] vs. $182.6 [63.4]; p=0.035). During the follow-up period after variceal eradication, no significant differences were found between the sclerotherapy and the ligation groups with respect to recurrent bleeding (3% vs. 2.9%; p=1.0), esophageal variceal recurrence (9.1% vs. 11.4%; p=1.0), and formation of new gastric varices (9.1% vs. 14.3%; p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Variceal band ligation is superior to sclerotherapy, because it is less costly and achieves variceal eradication more quickly, with lower relative frequencies of recurrent variceal bleeding and complications.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus nadolol and sucralfate compared with ligation alone for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a prospective, randomized trial

Both beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be valuable alternatives to sclerotherapy in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. Sucralfate is a mucosal protector. The effects of combinations of beta-blocker, band ligation, and sucralfate (triple therapy) remain unknown. A total of 122 patients with a history of esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to receive EVL only (group A, 62 patients) or triple therapy (group B, 60 patients). The procedure for the triple therapy included ligation with the addition of sucralfate granules until variceal obliteration. In addition, nadolol was administered during the course of the study or until death. After a median follow-up of 21 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 29 patients (47%) in group A and 14 patients (23%) in group B (P =.005). Recurrent bleeding from esophagogastric varices occurred in 18 patients in group A and 7 patients in group B (P =.001). Twenty-one patients in group A (50%) and 12 patients (26%) in group B experienced variceal recurrence after variceal obliteration (P <.05). Treatment failure occurred in 11 patients (18%) in group A and in 4 patients (7%) in group B (P =.05). Twenty patients from group A and 10 patients from group B died (P =.08); 9 and 4 of these deaths, respectively, were attributed to variceal hemorrhage (P =.26). The combination of ligation, nadolol, and sucralfate (triple therapy) proved more effective than banding ligation alone in terms of prevention of variceal recurrence and upper gastrointestinal rebleeding as well as variceal rebleeding.     

Combined ligation and sclerotherapy versus ligation alone for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: Variceal ligation has been shown to be superior to sclerotherapy in prevention of rebleeding and improving survival in patients with cirrhosis. However, 25% of patients will rebleed before completion of treatment. A number of trials have compared the combination of ligation and sclerotherapy to ligation alone in achieving rapid and complete eradication of esophageal varices, with conflicting results. METHODS: Two reviewers independently identified seven randomized, controlled trials that compared endoscopic variceal ligation with the combination of sclerotherapy and ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, reviewing references from retrieved articles, and scanning abstracts from conference proceedings. For each outcome, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using fixed-effects and random-effects models. The Mantel-Haenszel test for statistical heterogeneity was used to assess the validity of combining results from individual studies. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen in cessation of actively bleeding varices (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.43-2.36), variceal rebleeding (OR = 1.12, CI = 0.69-1.81), and mortality (OR = 1.1, CI = 0.70-1.74) in patients with variceal ligation versus patients receiving the combination treatment of ligation and sclerotherapy. Treatment sessions required to achieve complete variceal eradication were similar in the two treatment arms. A significantly higher incidence of esophageal stricture was seen in combination therapy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ligation and sclerotherapy offers no advantage over ligation alone in prevention of rebleeding and in reduction of mortality. It is also associated with a higher complication rate of esophageal stricture.     

Endoscopic management for bleeding esophageal varices: sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy plus band ligation versus band ligation alone. One year experience at a main hospital in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was done retrospectively to compare the outcome of sclerotherapy alone, band ligation alone and band ligation alternating with sclerotherapy in treatment of esophageal varices. METHODOLOGY: During 1 year 30 patients were admitted with variceal bleeding. They received either injection sclerotherapy (8 patients) or band ligation (11 patients), and 11 patients had a combination of both either during first bleed or during follow-up therapy, which is more than 2 sessions in each group. RESULTS: The success rate for stopping first bleeding was 100% in the band ligation and sclerotherapy alone group. The rebleeding rate was 27% in the combination group, 9% in the band ligation group, and none had rebleeding in the sclerotherapy group during follow-up. Eradication of varices was observed in 33% of patients after a second set of sclerotherapy and band ligation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed no significant difference between sclerotherapy versus band ligation in stopping initial bleeding or eradication of varices during the follow-up period, but there was a difference in re-bleeding rates among the three groups.     

小剂量硬化剂加固对食管静脉曲张术后的影响

目的探讨在密集套扎疗法的基础上进行硬化加固治疗对于食管静脉曲张复发的防治作用。方法对食管静脉曲张套扎治疗后食管曲张静脉消失或基本消失的患者进行硬化剂加固治疗,从齿状线开始依次向上在残存小曲张静脉内与血管旁粘膜下层注射5％鱼肝油酸钠,每点注射1—2ml,每次共注射10—14ml。观察其对静脉曲张消失后复发的预防作用。结果加固治疗组49例共行硬化治疗132次,平均2．7次,最多治疗4次。随访12～25个月,平均18个月。结果40例（81．9％）患者未发现食管静脉曲张再出现,原有细小静脉明显减轻或消失,9例复发。加固组与单纯套扎组再出血率有明显差异（10．2％对23．4％,P〈0．05）;超声内镜检查显示加固治疗组食管曲张静脉发现率明显低于单纯套扎组（42．9％对76．6％,P〈0．01）;加固治疗组与单纯套扎组穿通支血管检出率无明显差异（42．8％对57．4％,P〉0．05）。治疗后未发现严重并发症。结论套扎治疗后小剂量硬化剂加固治疗可显著减少套扎术后残留的食管曲张静脉、防止闭塞消失的静脉再通、预防再出血,有助于提高结扎术的长期疗效,延缓静脉曲张的复发。