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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Risk factors for predicting early variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation

AIM: To analyze the clinical risk factors for early variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL).METHODS: 342 cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices who received elective EVL to prevent bleeding or rebleeding at our endoscopy center between January 2005 and July 2010.were included in this study.The early rebleeding cases after EVL were confirmed by clinical signs or endoscopy.A case-control study was performed comparing the patients presenting with early rebleeding with those without thi...     

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.     

Infection, antibiotics and variceal bleed

Abstract   Up to 66% of cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage may encounter bacterial infections. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage is proven to be effective in reducing bacterial infections and has been advocated as a standard procedure. On the other hand, the presence of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients is demonstrated to be a prognostic indicator of failure to control gastrointestinal hemorrhage. A recent study suggested that the use of prophylactic antibiotics after endoscopic therapy may prevent variceal rebleeding. It is recommended that prophylactic antibiotics should be employed in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding in anticipation for a lower frequency of bacterial infections as well as early rebleeding.     

Infection and variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Endotoxemia and bacterial infection are frequent in patients with cirrhosis. They alter systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics, worsen coagulation disorders, impair liver function and thus may induce variceal bleeding. In variceal bleeding, bacterial infection favours failure to control bleeding, early rebleeding, and death. In patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding, antibiotic-prophylaxis decreases bacterial infection and the incidence of early rebleeding, and, more important, significantly decreases the death rate in these patients.     

Endoscopic measurement of variceal pressure in cirrhosis: correlation with portal pressure and variceal hemorrhage

This study evaluated the clinical application of a pressure-sensitive gauge that allows the noninvasive measurement of the pressure of esophageal varices at endoscopy. The study was performed in 70 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Among them, 47 had bled from the varices and 23 had varices but had not bled. In addition to measurements of variceal pressure, the size of the varices was estimated semiquantitatively at endoscopy. This allowed an estimate of the tension on the wall of the varices as the product of the transmural pressure and the estimated radius of the varices. Most patients had a standard hemodynamic evaluation of portal hypertension, with measurements of wedged and free hepatic venous pressures, and of azygos blood flow. These were performed within 24 h of the variceal pressure measurements. Variceal pressure was significantly higher in bleeders than in nonbleeders (15.7 +/- 2.8 vs. 12.1 +/- 2.6 mmHg, p less than 0.001) in spite of a similar portal pressure in both groups (20.1 +/- 5.1 vs. 20.4 +/- 7.6 mmHg, NS). More than 60% of the bleeders, but only 22% of the nonbleeders had a variceal pressure greater than or equal to 15 mmHg (p less than 0.005). Among nonbleeders, variceal pressure was higher in patients with large varices (13.9 +/- 2 mmHg, n = 9) than in those with small varices (10.9 +/- 2.4 mmHg, n = 14) (p less than 0.01). Estimates of variceal wall tension further exaggerated the differences between bleeders and nonbleeders (66.1 +/- 22.6 vs. 32.0 +/- 19.8 mmHg.mm, p less than 0.001). More than 50% of bleeders, but just 9% of nonbleeders had an estimated variceal tension greater than 50 mmHg.mm (p less than 0.001). Our findings support the role of an increased variceal pressure in the pathogenesis of variceal hemorrhage, and suggest that this noninvasive technique can be valuable in assessing the risk of variceal hemorrhage in patients with portal hypertension.     

Comparison of modified percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization and endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for gastric variceal rebleeding

AIM:To compare the efficacy of modified percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization(PTVE)with 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate(2-OCA)and endoscopic variceal obturation(EVO)with an injection of 2-OCA for prophylaxis of gastric variceal rebleeding. METHODS:In this retrospective study,the medical records of liver cirrhosis patients with gastric variceal bleeding who underwent either endoscopic 2-OCA(EVO) or modified PTVE using 2-OCA at Shandong Provincial Hospital from January 2006 to December 2008 were reviewed.Patient demographics,rebleeding rate,survival rate,and complications were compared between the two groups(PTVE and EVO).All results were expressed as mean±SD,or as a percentage.Quantitative variables were compared by two sample Student t tests, and qualitative variables were compared by the Fisher exact test or theχ 2 test(with Yates correction)where appropriate.A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.Statistical computation was performed using SPSS 13.0 software. RESULTS:A total of 77 patients were included;45 patients who underwent EVO and 32 patients who received PTVE.During the follow-up(19.78±7.70 mo in the EVO group,vs 21.53±8.56 mo in the PTVE group) rebleeding occurred in 17 patients in the EVO group and in 4 patients in the PTVE group(37.78%vs 12.5%, P=0.028).The cumulative rebleeding-free rate was 75%,59%,and 49%in 1,2,and 3 years respectively for EVO,and 93%,84%,and 84%for PTVE(P=0.011). Cox analysis was used to identify independent factors that predicted rebleeding after treatment.Variables including age,gender,cause,Child-Pugh classification, size of gastric varices(GV),location of GV,and treatment methods were analyzed.It was revealed that Child-Pugh classification[risk ratio(RR)2.10,95%CI:1.03-4.28,P=0.040],choice of treatment(RR 0.25, 95%CI:0.08-0.80,P=0.019),and size of GV(RR 2.14, 95%CI:1.07-4.28,P=0.032)were the independent factors for predicting rebleeding.Follow-up computed tomography revealed that cyanoacrylate was retained in the varices and in the feeding veins of PTVE patie     

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.