Therapeutic results of endoscopic variceal ligation for acute bleeding of oesophageal and gastric varices

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) using 'O' rings is widely accepted as a treatment of oesophageal varices that is at least as effective as endoscopic injection sclerotherapy but which produces fewer complications. Endoscopic variceal ligation using detachable snares has attracted attention as a safe and easy method of endoscopic treatment for gastric varices. Nineteen patients with acute bleeding from oesophageal or gastric varices were treated in the present study. Of these, 14 patients were treated with EVL using 'O' rings and five patients were treated with EVL using detachable snares and the treatment results were evaluated. Haemostasis was achieved in all patients. No serious complications of the procedures were observed. However, recurrences and rebleeding were observed in some patients during the maximum follow-up period of 24 months. Endoscopic variceal ligation using 'O' rings and detachable snares is useful for achieving haemostasis in cases of acute bleeding from oesophageal or gastric varices. However, additional endoscopic sclerotherapy may be needed to eliminate the variceal feeding vessels to further improve the long-term prognosis of these patients.     

Two Cases of Rectal Varices Treated by Endoscopic Variceal Ligation

Abstract: Case 1 was a 49-year-old asymptomatic, woman with enlarged esophageal varices due to cirrhosis of the liver. Fourteen days after the last session of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices, colonoscopy revealed large tortuous rectal varices extending 4 cm from the dentate line. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was performed for rectal varices, and bands were placed on the varices at seven sites. There were no complications. Seven days after EVL, colonoscopy revealed ulcers in the rectum, and shrinkage of varices. Case 2 was a 62-year-old woman with general fatigue due to cirrhosis of the liver. At 50 years of age, she underwent a transection of the esophagus to remove varices, and splenectomy. At 57 years of age, EIS was per formed for recurrent esophageal varices. Colonoscopy was performed because of anal bleeding, and revealed tortuous rectal varices extending 5 cm from the dentate line. EVL was then performed, and bands were placed on the varices at eight sites, with no complications. Seven days after EVL, colonoscopy indicated ulcers in the rectum and shrinkage of the varices. EVL appears to be a safe and effective therapy for rectal varices. (Dig Endosc 1999; 11: 66–69)     

Influence of endoscopic variceal ligation on oesophageal motility

BACKGROUND: To determine the change of oesophageal manometry in patients with oesophageal varices before and after oesophageal variceal ligation (EVL). METHODS: Forty-five patients who had liver cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with high risk of bleeding were managed by EVL. Oesophageal manometry was performed just prior to the ligation and 4-6 weeks after obliteration of varices. Another 45 age- and sex-matched patients without hepatic, oesophageal or systemic disease served as the control group. RESULTS: At 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES), the amplitude of the contractive wave was significantly lower in patients before EVL (56.9 +/- 31.8 vs 80.1 +/- 30.1, P< 1.05) and returned to the level of control subjects after EVL (76.5 +/- 37.0 vs 80.1 +/- 30.1, P> 0.05). At 10 cm above LES, the amplitude of the contractive wave was significantly lower in patients before and after EVL than the control group (54.3 +/- 29.2 vs 68.1 +/- 29.5, 54.2 +/- 26.0 vs 68.1 +/- 29.5, respectively, P< 0.05). The percentage of tertiary waves was significantly higher in patients before and after EVL than in the control group (31.4 +/- 36.6 vs 5.8 +/- 15.1, 26.9 +/- 32.9 vs 5.8 +/- 15.1, respectively, P< 0.05). However, no significant swallowing disturbance was noted in patients after EVL. There was significantly greater LES length in patients before EVL (4.0 +/- 0.9 vs 3.4 +/- 0.7, P<0.05) but there was no significant difference in the LES length after EVL as compared with the control group. Eighty-six per cent (39/45) of patients developed paraoesophageal varices and 31% (14/45) developed new varices 6 months after variceal obliteration. However, there was no significant difference in manometry at the time of variceal obliteration between patients with variceal recurrence and those without. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of varices affected oesophageal motility. However, such abnormality had little clinical significance. Endoscopic variceal ligation normalized oesophageal motility and may not induce abnormal oesophageal motility. The manometric change can not be used to predict the recurrence of varices in cirrhotic patients after variceal obliteration.     

Endoscopic ligation of oesophageal varices compared with injection sclerotherapy in primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Oesophageal varices are an important complication in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). However, there have yet to be any studies made on treatment of oesophageal varices in PBC. We therefore studied the efficacy and related complications of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) as an initial treatment in primary biliary cirrhotic patients. METHODS: From December 1985 to March 1999, 29 biliary cirrhotic Japanese patients with portal hypertension and oesophageal varices were treated in our clinics. Eleven patients were treated with EVL and EIS, and 18 patients underwent EIS only. The liver function, renal function and respiratory function were studied before and after endoscopic treatment and any complications were also examined. RESULTS: In stages III and IV, significant differences were observed in the serum levels for total bilirubin and gamma-glutamic pyruvic transaminase only in the EIS group. Significant differences were observed in the rate of appearance of pyrexia, retrosternal pain and pleural effusion between the EIS and EVL groups. CONCLUSION: EVL significantly reduced the adverse effects associated with EIS at the initial session in primary biliary cirrhotic patients.     

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.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation of patients with liver cirrhosis and cirrhosis accompanied by hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Rupture of esophageal varices with severe gastrointestinal hemorrhage is one of the most serious complications of liver cirrhosis (LC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) complicating LC. The present study looks at the success of hemostasis in LC and LC accompanied by HCC, the success of breaking the varices cluster and the rate of rebleeding in patients of LC subject to emergency ligation and prophylactic ligation. Methods: Seventy‐five patients were divided into three groups. Group 1: 30 patients with LC accompanied by HCC with digestive bleeding; group 2: 30 patients with LC with digestive bleeding; and group 3: 15 patients with LC with high risk of digestive bleeding from esophageal varices (with no medical history of digestive bleeding). Success of hemostasis 72 h after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was that patients did not vomit blood nor produce black feces. The effectiveness of EVL for iradication of the variceal cluster was classified into three levels: good, fairly good and poor. Results: The hemostasis success in group 1 (LC accompanied by HCC) and group 2 (LC with digestive bleeding due to esophageal varices) was 73.3% and 93.4%, respectively. The success of breaking the varix cluster in group 2 (LC) and group 3 (LC with high risk of digestive bleeding and treated by prophylactic ligation) was 73.3% and 80%, respectively. The rate of rebleeding in group 2 and group 3 after 1 year was 20% and 13.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Endoscopic variceal ligation is a good technique for variceal hemostasis and eradication of the esophageal varices cluster.     

Efficacy of Endoscopic Esophageal Variceal Ligation in an Immunocompromised Host

Abstract: We successfully treated esophageal varices by endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in a 50-year-old female patient with common variable immunodeficiency and liver cirrhosis secondary to hepatitis B. Under the existing disadvantageous conditions including the immunocompromised status, hyperal-lergic reactions to several drugs, chronic pulmonary infection, and impaired hepatic function, we considered EVL to be of greater potential benefit than endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS). This case highlights the possible merits of EVL over EIS, even in the presence of various restrictions, such as the immunocompromised condition of our patient.     

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.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Prevention of variceal bleeding, a major cause of morbidity and mortality, is an important goal in the management of patients with portal hypertension (PHT). Although propranolol has been found useful in preventing the first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis) in cirrhotic PHT, it has limitations which include side effects, contraindications, non-compliance and failure in some patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has not been used for primary prophylaxis. METHODS: Thirty cirrhotic patients with PHT, grade III to IV oesophageal varices, hepatic venous pressure gradient > or = 12 mmHg and no prior history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomized to receive propranolol (to reduce their pulse rate by 25% from baseline, n = 15) and EVL (weekly to fortnightly until variceal eradication, n = 15). The two groups were comparable. All the patients in EVL group had variceal eradication during 3.8 +/- 2.2 sessions. RESULTS: There was no major complication or interval bleeding. During a follow-up period of 17.6 +/- 4.7 months, varices recurred in three, two of which bled (successfully treated by EVL). In contrast, during this period of follow up one patient in the propranolol group had variceal bleeding (P=NS). Side effects of propranolol included symptomatic bradycardia requiring reduction of dose in one of 15 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although sample size in this study is small, it seems that EVL may be a good option for primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic PHT; further studies on a larger number of patients and longer follow up are required.     

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.     

Severe bleeding following endoscopic variceal ligation: should EVL be avoided in Child C patients?

In the last decade there has been an evolution in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is one of those new techniques that not only has shown to be more effective than sclerotherapy, but also causes less side effects, resulting in less episodes of rebleeding and improving survival. We describe severe bleeding in 3 patients after EVL, occurring between 5 and 10 days after the initial ligation. Two Child C patients could not be resuscitated and died shortly after this event. Severely impaired clotting function as a result of the liver disease and the greater size of the ulcers induced by EVL may contribute to this dramatic complication. Severe bleeding due to postligation ulceration may lead to death, which occurred in 2 of our Child C patients. Since more and more endoscopists are using EVL in the treatment of oesophageal variceal bleeding, they should be aware of the possible complications caused by this rather new technique.     

结扎和硬化疗法治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张出血疗效比较的荟粹分析

目的:对套扎疗法与硬化疗法治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张出血的疗效进行系统评价．方法:通过Medline、EMBase和中国期刊全文数据库检索1985-01／2005-11发表的有关硬化疗法与套扎疗法治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张出血相关文献,并采用RevMan4．2．8进行Meta分析．结果:按照入选标准,有7项前瞻性随机对照临床试验纳入．Meta分析结果显示,硬化疗法在治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张中的再出血率高于套扎疗法(RR=1．32,95％CI:1．10-1．57, P<0．05);而在降低死亡率方面二者相似(RR= 1．24,95％CI:0．99-1．55,P>0．05)．结论:套扎疗法较硬化疗法在治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张中能更好的预防再出血,在降低死亡率方面无差异．     

内镜下套扎联合硬化剂注射治疗乙型肝炎肝硬化并发食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血患者疗效及其再出血危险因素分析*

目的 研究内镜下套扎联合硬化剂注射治疗乙型肝炎肝硬化并发食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血（EGVB）患者的疗效,并分析引起治疗后再出血的危险因素。 方法 2012年2月~2016年2月收治的120例乙型肝炎肝硬化并发EGVB患者,采用内镜下食管静脉曲张套扎术（EVL）联合内镜下静脉曲张硬化剂注射术（EIS）治疗,对胃底静脉曲张出血患者采用组织黏胶内镜下注射联合EIS治疗,术后给予心得安治疗。采用Logistic回归分析再出血的危险因素。 结果 在手术过程中止血成功率为100.0%,33例EGVB1型患者治疗后静脉曲张消失率明显高于而静脉曲张复发率显著低于2型或1型/2型患者（P<0.05）;不同类型静脉曲张患者治疗后再出血率比较无显著性差异（P>0.05）;35例再出血患者男性占（85.7%）,明显高于85例未再出血组的49.4%（P<0.05）,年龄明显大于未出血患者（P<0.05）,门静脉内径和Child-Pugh评分分别为（1.5±0.5）cm和（10.3±2.1）分,显著高于未出血患者[分别为（1.1±0.2） cm和（7.3±1.3） 分,P<0.05],而血清白蛋白和血钠浓度分别为（23.4±5.5） g/L和（124.67±31.47） mmol/L,显著低于未出血患者[（33.6±6.7）g/L和（137.5±36.2） mmol/L,P<0.05];经Logistic回归分析,发现门静脉内径和Child-Pugh评分是诱发再出血的危险因素[OR=3.713（1.253~10.999）、OR=4.267（1.311~13.886）],而白蛋白水平和血钠浓度是再出血发生的保护因素[OR=0.236（0.062~0.902）、OR=0.143（0.026~0.785）]。 结论 内镜下套扎联合硬化剂注射治疗乙型肝炎肝硬化并发EGVB患者临床疗效显著,并且对EGVB1型患者疗效最好。门静脉内径宽或Child-Pugh评分高说明肝储备功能差,发生再出血的风险就大。因此,针对这样的患者,更应该做好防治再出血治疗。     

The value of the endoscopic therapies in the treatment of rectal varices: a retrospective comparison between injection sclerotherapy and band ligation.

This study consisted of 15 patients who had undergone endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for rectal varices. Ten of fifteen patients had histories of anal bleeding, and colonoscopy revealed signs of the risk of variceal rupture in the other five patients. EIS was perfomed in six of the fifteen patients, and the other nine patients underwent EVL. EIS was performed weekly from 2 to 4 times (mean, 3.0), and the total amount of sclerosant ranged from 3.2 to 5.8ml (mean, 4.9ml). After EIS, colonoscopy revealed shrinkage of the rectal varices in all six patients with no complications. EVL was performed weekly from 1 to 3 times (mean, 2.2), and bands were placed on the varices at 2-12 sites (mean, 8.0). After EVL, colonoscopy revealed both ulcers and shrinkage of the varices in the rectum in all nine patients. Eight of the nine experienced no operative complications. However, in the other case, colonoscopy revealed bleeding from ulcers after EVL. The average follow-up period after EIS or EVL was 30 months. The overall non-recurrence rate of rectal varices was 11 of 15 (73.3%); this includes five of the six patients (83.3%) receiving EIS and six of the nine who received EVL (66.7%). The non-recurrence rate was no difference between EIS group and EVL group statistically (P=0.57) by reason of small number of cases. In conclusion, EIS is some superior to EVL with regard to long-term effectiveness, complications on rectal varices.     

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.     

Endoscopic esophageal varix ligation: preliminary clinical experience

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was performed in 14 consecutive patients who had recently bled from esophageal varices. None was actively bleeding at initial treatment. Ligations were accomplished using an endoscopic ligating device and an overtube. There were no procedural complications. 132 varix ligations were performed during 44 separate EVL sessions. Two patients were lost to follow-up and two died; neither death resulted from hemorrhage or treatment complications. Variceal rebleeding occurred in 2 noncompliant patients (14.3%) and was successfully controlled with emergent EVL. Ten patients achieved complete variceal eradication with from 1 to 6 (mean, 3.9) EVL sessions. No major complications (perforation, secondary bleeding, deep ulceration) resulted and there were no treatment failures. Follow-up of 10 surviving patients ranged from 240 to 370 (mean, 280) days. Endoscopic observation suggested that varices were obliterated by a process of mechanical strangulation, ischemia, superficial ulceration, and scar formation. Preliminary data indicate that EVL is a safe and effective treatment for esophageal varices.     

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.     

An Improved Endoscopic Variceal Ligator for Esophagogastric Varix

Abstract: We recently reported a 16.0 mm in length new type of instrument with an inner cylinder of 10.3 mm for endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). This device is capable of shooting three elastic O bands consecutively in rapid succession without removing the endoscope. The aspirated volume of variceal tissue with the new instrument is larger than that obtained with the Stiegmann ligator. We performed EVL in 16 cases with esophageal varices and seven with solitary gastric varices. EVL was performed for prophylaxis in all cases. The esophageal varices disappeared in all 16 cases after ulcer formation. The procedure was performed once in 14 cases and twice in the remaining two. Three patients died of hepatic failure during the follow-up period which ranged from four to 16 months. Six and 12 month cumulative recurrence rates were 30% and 48%, respectively. All gastric varices disappeared after a single EVL session. There was one variceal recurrence during the follow-up period. Computed tomography and/ or arterioportography performed previously had shown patent gastro-renal shunt in five cases. No changes in the shunts were observed after treatment. No serious complications attributable to EVL were encountered in this series. Therefore, this method is potentially useful for the treatment of not only esophageal varices but also gastric varices.     

Evaluation of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with and without simultaneous ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices

For more effective and simple endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices, we developed an EIS procedure with ligation (EISL) that is non-invasive, in which EIS and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are performed simultaneously. In this study, we compared EISL and EIS in a randomlized sample of patients (n = 14 for each procedure). For EISL, EVL was performed, including the injection site, after the injection of 5% ethanolamine oleate with iopamidol (EOI) into a varix. The mean number of treatment sessions required for eradication of esophageal varices was 2.3 ± 0.5 for EISL and 3.9 ± 0.8 for EIS (P < 0.001); the mean number of treatment sites was 6.2 ± 2.2 for EISL and 14.0 ± 5.0 for EIS (P < 0.001); the mean total amount of EOI used was 13.8 ± 5.2 ml for EISL and 26.3 ± 9.8 ml for EIS (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of recurrence of varices or in bleeding between the two groups. For EISL, fewer treatment sessions and less sclerosant were sufficient, probably because the sclerosants were more effective due to the blockage of variceal blood flow by the ligation. This method should provide a novel modification of EIS. (Received Mar. 30, 1998; accepted Sept. 25, 1998)     

Hepatic infarction with portal thrombosis

A case of hepatic infarction with portal thrombosis is reported. A 63-year-old woman with liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices was admitted for treatment of the esophagel varices. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) were performed. Two months later, she experienced right hypochondralgia and right flank pain. Serum transaminase levels were suddenly elevated, and computed tomography scans of the liver showed multiple small nodular lesions. Her condition worsened, and she died of hepatic failure. Autopsy revealed splenic and portal vein thrombosis, multiple hepatic infarction, and evidence of chronic pancreatitis. We believe that liver cirrhosis and chronic pancreatitis were the main risk factors for the portal thrombosis, and the treatment for esophageal varices appeared to have triggered the thrombosis. The hepatic infarction was caused by the portal thrombosis.